DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005299211-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-05-24

000121526

Contested design: 005299211-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity against registered Community design No 005299211 is rejected, and the applicant must bear 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 005299211. 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 (10)

Registered RCDD1

bag

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

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

bag design

Web disclosureD3⚠ rejected as evidence

bag design

Web disclosureD4⚠ rejected as evidence

bag design

Web disclosureD5⚠ rejected as evidence

bag design

disclosed 2018-11-02

Web disclosureD6⚠ rejected as evidence

bag design

disclosed 2018-11-02

Web disclosureD7⚠ rejected as evidence

bag design

Web disclosureD8⚠ rejected as evidence

bag design

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 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested bag design lacked novelty and individual character over the holder's earlier RCD D1 and nine additional bag designs identified as D2 to D10.
  • The holder challenged the evidential value of the applicant's hyperlinks and extracts, argued that several disclosures were unreliable or irrelevant, and maintained that the contested design created a different overall impression.
  • The Division held that only D1 to D10 were timely invoked; annexes 2 to 8 and 11 were inadmissible new prior art, while annex 10 and one screenshot in annex 9 only supplemented certain already-invoked designs.
  • D1 was disregarded under the Article 7(2) grace period, and the applicant failed to prove effective prior disclosure of D2 to D10 under Article 7(1), so the invalidity application was rejected with costs against the applicant.

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
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