Invalidity · first instance · 2024-06-12
000121569
Contested design: 007075890-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application against registered Community design No 007075890-0001 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 007075890-0001. 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
Holder · RCD owner
Panagiotis Spiliopoulosvia PDF extraction
GR
5 Roumelis str., 18345 Moschato, Grecia
Represented by
Ioannis Psarakis
Prior art cited (10)
holder's earlier lunch bag design
RCD No 004505576-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-11-16
JanSport bag design cited in Annex 1
Amazon / unidentified website
bag design cited in Annex 1
Etsy
bag design cited in Annex 1
bag design cited in Annex 1
disclosed 2018-11-02
bag design cited in Annex 1
disclosed 2018-11-02
bag design cited in Annex 1
Etsy
bag design cited in Annex 1
bag design cited in Annex 1
BuzzFeed · disclosed 2016-11-17
bag design cited in Annex 1
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued the contested lunch-bag design lacked novelty and individual character over the holder's earlier RCD D1 and additional bag designs D2-D10, claiming colour was non-essential and the same core features recurred.
- ›The holder challenged the internet evidence as incomplete and unreliable, said some links were inactive or unrelated, and argued the contested design differed in shape, proportions, and closure details from the cited designs.
- ›The Division treated only D1-D10 as timely invoked, excluded later-added designs and most late annexes as inadmissible, and found D2-D10 not sufficiently proven disclosed under Article 7 CDR.
- ›For D1, the Division accepted disclosure but found significant differences in the top flap and central strap, so the contested design created a different overall impression and was not identical to D1.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected, and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ELIŠOVÁ
- MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENSEP
- MemberBenjamin VAN Bavel
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000124157 vs Invented Here B.V. | 2025-03-07 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000124416 vs Wenbo Huang | 2025-01-28 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000121529 vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS | 2024-05-31 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000121525 vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS | 2024-05-24 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000121526 vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS | 2024-05-24 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000121568 vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS | 2024-05-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000121528 vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS | 2024-05-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000121527 vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS | 2024-05-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |