DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005299211-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-05-23

000121527

Contested design: 005299211-0004

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 005299211-0004 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

Citron Trading LLCvia PDF extraction

AE

Al Shafar Building 1, Jumeirah Street, 2nd floor office 03, Dubai 927423, United Arab Emirates

Represented by

Bird & Bird LLP

Holder · RCD owner

Panagiotis Spiliopoulosvia PDF extraction

GR

5 Roumelis str., 18345 Moschato, Greece

Represented by

Ioannis Psarakis

Prior art cited (10)

Registered RCDD1

bag design

RCD No 004505576-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-11-16

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

bag design

Amazon / unidentified website

Web disclosureD3⚠ rejected as evidence

bag design

Etsy

Web disclosureD4⚠ rejected as evidence

bag design

Web disclosureD5⚠ rejected as evidence

bag design

Web disclosureD6⚠ rejected as evidence

bag design

Web disclosureD7⚠ rejected as evidence

bag design

Etsy

Web disclosureD8⚠ rejected as evidence

bag design

Dezeen

Web disclosureD9⚠ rejected as evidence

bag design

BuzzFeed · disclosed 2016-11-17

Web disclosureD10⚠ rejected as evidence

bag design

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)

Argument summary

  • The applicant claimed the contested bag lacked novelty and individual character over the holder's earlier RCD and several internet-disclosed bag designs.
  • The holder challenged the probative value and admissibility of the internet evidence and argued the contested design differed in shape, proportions and closure.
  • The Division excluded newly introduced rejoinder designs, disregarded D1 under the Article 7(2) grace period, and found the remaining web evidence insufficient to prove disclosure.
  • Because no earlier design was proven disclosed under Article 7 CDR, the Article 25(1)(b) challenge based on Articles 5 and 6 CDR failed and the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL

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
000121528

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

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

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

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