Invalidity · first instance · 2024-05-02
000122455
Contested design: 007988662-0003
Outcome
The invalidity application against Registered Community design No 007988662-0003 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(fr)
1. La demande en nullité à l’encontre du dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré nº 007988662-0003 est rejetée. 2. La demanderesse supporte les frais de la titulaire, fixés à 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
EUPCOMVA, S.L.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Antonio Torrandell, 90 1, 07300 Inca, Espagne
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Jean Cassegrain, SASvia PDF extraction
France (FR)
12, rue St Florentin, 75001 Paris, France
Represented by
Prior art cited (6)
alleged earlier folding mesh shopping bag sold by the applicant
CTS51961 · Applicant declarations and invoices · disclosed 2018-06-18
Chinese bag design
90302179.X · DesignView · disclosed 1991-04-03
Chinese bag design
200930343172.9 · DesignView · disclosed 2010-07-21
US design patent for a backpack-like bag
D340354 · DesignView · disclosed 1993-10-19
Registered Community design for a mesh bag
002672022-0005 · DesignView · disclosed 2015-04-09
Registered Community design for a mesh bag
002672022-0004 · DesignView · disclosed 2015-04-09
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on its alleged pre-2020 sales of a folding mesh bag and on five earlier registered designs or design-patent disclosures.
- ›The holder argued the applicant's declarations and invoices did not objectively prove disclosure of the same bag before filing and that any such disclosure would in any event not have been reasonably known in the sector.
- ›The Division held the Annex 1 declarations and invoices did not establish a concrete link between the photographed bag and reference CTS51961, so that alleged prior-use disclosure failed under Article 7.
- ›It accepted disclosure of D1 to D5 but found all of them created a different overall impression from the contested bag, which retained individual character and was not identical to any prior design.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected, and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed costs of EUR 400.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberJessica LEWIS
- MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000124157 vs Invented Here B.V. | 2025-03-07 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000124416 vs Wenbo Huang | 2025-01-28 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000121569 vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS | 2024-06-12 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000121529 vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS | 2024-05-31 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000121525 vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS | 2024-05-24 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000121526 vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS | 2024-05-24 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000121527 vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS | 2024-05-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000121568 vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS | 2024-05-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |