DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008770184-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-04-23

000120582

Contested design: 008770184-0004

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 008770184-0004 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

RED-ICE Leszek Dominikvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Nowa 8, 84123 Widlino, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

Mollylac Michał Szewczykvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Piotrkowska 270, 90361 Łódź, Poland

Represented by

Maria Przybylska-Karczemska

Prior art cited (5)

Web disclosure1⚠ rejected as evidence

XL COSMETIC BOX FOR LAMP VARNISH LARGE + BELT

7667600284 · archivum.allegro.pl · disclosed 2019-05-27

Web disclosure2⚠ rejected as evidence

XL COSMETIC BOX FOR COSMETICS LAMP LAMPS

7531658240 · archivum.allegro.pl · disclosed 2019-12-03

Web disclosure3⚠ rejected as evidence

XL COSMETIC CASE FOR LAMP LAMP black

7710410302 · archivum.allegro.pl · disclosed 2019-03-04

Web disclosure4⚠ rejected as evidence

Cosmetic case for hairdressing lamp XL-XJ054

6873136223 · archivum.allegro.pl · disclosed 2017-09-26

Web disclosure5⚠ rejected as evidence

Sunone Cosmetic Case Xl Black Rugged

8065097969 · archivum.allegro.pl · disclosed 2019-12-08

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the cosmetic case lacked novelty and individual character because five earlier cosmetic cases already on the market showed the same essential features.
  • Holder argued the contested design differed in drawer arrangement, handle shape, and surface pattern or colour, and also contested whether the alleged prior designs were validly disclosed.
  • The Division held the applicant had not proven prior disclosure under Article 7 CDR because it submitted only compiled documents and hyperlinks, not reliable website printouts or screenshots showing source and date.
  • Without proven disclosure, the invalidity grounds under Articles 5 and 6 CDR could not succeed, so the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberIneta GALUBICKĖ

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

03.01

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000124157

vs Invented Here B.V.

2025-03-07Art 25(1)(b)037
000124416

vs Wenbo Huang

2025-01-28Art 25(1)(b)037
000121569

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-06-12Art 25(1)(b)037
000121529

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-31Art 25(1)(b)037
000121525

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-24Art 25(1)(b)037
000121526

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-24Art 25(1)(b)037
000121527

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-23Art 25(1)(b)037
000121568

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-23Art 25(1)(b)037