DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006285078-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-05-31

000121529

Contested design: 006285078-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear 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 006285078-0001 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

lunch bag

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

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

bag design

Amazon

Web disclosureD3⚠ rejected as evidence

bag design

Etsy

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

Etsy

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)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on the holder's earlier RCD and multiple online examples of similar roll-top bag designs.
  • Holder challenged the probative value and timeliness of the web evidence and argued the contested design differed in shape, proportions, closure details, and overall impression.
  • The Division treated newly introduced rejoinder designs as inadmissible, accepted disclosure only for D1, and found disclosure of D2 to D10 not proven by solid objective evidence.
  • Comparing D1 with the contested design, the Division found the side ruffled pockets, extra strap, decoration, and bulkier shape created a different overall impression and showed non-immaterial differences.
  • The application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

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
000121525

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-24Art 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