DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002126649-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-05-23

000122480

Contested design: 002126649-0002

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 002126649-0002 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

Tomasz Bentkowskivia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Jesionowa 14, 62-005 Owińska, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

Lilou Sp. z o.o.

Poland (PL)

ul. Filtrowa 50, 02-032 Warszawa, Poland

Represented by

Łukasz Baszczyński

Prior art cited (7)

OtherPrior design 1⚠ rejected as evidence

Undated image of an invoked prior jewelry design.

OtherPrior design 2⚠ rejected as evidence

Undated image of an invoked prior jewelry design.

OtherPrior design 3⚠ rejected as evidence

Undated image of an invoked prior jewelry design.

OtherPrior design 4⚠ rejected as evidence

Undated image of an invoked prior jewelry design.

OtherPrior design 5⚠ rejected as evidence

Undated image of an invoked prior jewelry design.

OtherPrior design 6⚠ rejected as evidence

Undated image of an invoked prior jewelry design.

OtherPrior design 7⚠ rejected as evidence

Undated image of an invoked prior jewelry design.

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant claimed the contested jewelry charm lacked novelty and individual character because openwork lily designs were already widely used in trade.
  • To support invalidity, the applicant filed seven images of alleged prior designs but provided no dates or disclosure sources for any of them.
  • The holder argued the application was unfounded because the evidence did not show when, by whom, or under what circumstances the alleged prior designs had been disclosed.
  • The Division held that disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR must be proven by solid and objective evidence; undated, source-less images were insufficient, so the invalidity claim failed.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO

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

11.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000122480

vs Lilou Sp. z o.o.

2025-06-03Art 25(1)(b)117
000120678

vs POMELLATO S.p.A.

2023-11-23Art 25(1)(b)117
000119878

vs Henan Nanhua Qianmu Biological Technology Co., Ltd.

2023-04-11Art 25(1)(b)117
000117656

vs Fleurop AG

2022-12-20Art 25(1)(b)117
000117858

vs Fleurop AG

2022-12-19Art 25(1)(b)117
000117632

vs Yiwu Hongyu Trading Company

2022-10-06Art 25(1)(b)117
000114705

vs Albert Ungrad

2022-03-17Art 25(1)(b)117
000114121

vs YES BIŻUTERIA SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA

2022-02-09Art 25(1)(b)117