DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004505576-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-05-24

000121525

Contested design: 004505576-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity against registered Community design No 004505576-0001 is dismissed, and the applicant is ordered to pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Se desestima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del modelo comunitario registrado n.º 004505576-0001. 2. Se condena al solicitante a que sufrague las costas del titular, fijadas en 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Citron Trading LLCvia PDF extraction

AE

Al Shafar Building 1, Jumeirah Street, 2ª office 03, Dubai 927423, Emiratos Árabes Unidos

Represented by

Bird & Bird LLP

Holder · RCD owner

Panagiotis Spiliopoulosvia PDF extraction

GR

5 Roumelis str., 18345 Moschato, Grecia

Represented by

Ioannis Psarakis

Prior art cited (7)

Web disclosureD1⚠ rejected as evidence

earlier bag design cited in Annex 1

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

earlier bag design cited in Annex 1

Web disclosureD3⚠ rejected as evidence

earlier bag design cited in Annex 1

Web disclosureD4⚠ rejected as evidence

earlier bag design cited in Annex 1

Web disclosureD5⚠ rejected as evidence

earlier bag design cited in Annex 1

Web disclosureD6⚠ rejected as evidence

earlier bag design cited in Annex 1

Web disclosureD7⚠ rejected as evidence

earlier bag design cited in Annex 1

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant claimed the contested bag design lacked novelty and individual character in light of earlier similar bag designs D1-D7 allegedly disclosed online before 13/11/2017.
  • The holder argued the applicant's web extracts and hyperlinks had no probative value, some links were inactive, some cited items differed or were backpacks, and later-filed new designs were inadmissible.
  • The Division held only D1-D7 were timely invoked; most later annexes expanded the subject matter and were inadmissible, while the admitted website extracts still did not reliably prove where and when the earlier designs were disclosed.
  • Because prior disclosure under Article 7 was not sufficiently established, the Division did not assess novelty or individual character further and rejected the invalidity application with costs against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENSEP
  • 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
000121526

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-24Art 25(1)(b)037
000121568

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-23Art 25(1)(b)037
000121528

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-23Art 25(1)(b)037
000121527

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

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