Invalidity · first instance · 2024-07-24
000122354
Contested design: 004541712-0016
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 004541712-0016 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
GOTSZLIK Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnościąvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Glinki 27A, 63200 Jarocin Poland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
IKOONA SP. Z O.O.
Poland (PL)
ul. Marsz. Józefa Piłsudskiego 74/230, 50020 Wroclaw, Poland
Represented by
Aleksandra Kacperska
Prior art cited (4)
rainbow-coloured wafer cone shown in an online tutorial article
Tikkido.com article "Watercolour painted Rainbow Ice cream Cones Tutorial" · Tikkido.com · disclosed 2016-08-22
rainbow-coloured wafer cone shown in a Tikkido Instagram post
https://www.instagram.com/p/BG-QxYFOoCL/ · Instagram · disclosed 2016-06-23
two wafer cones shown in a Tikkido Facebook post
https://www.facebook.com/Tikkido/photos/pb.100050348025822.-2207520000./1355728144441805/?type=3 · Facebook · disclosed 2016-06-23
two coloured wafer cones shown in a Tikkido Twitter post
https://twitter.com/Tikkido/status/745737462836658176 · Twitter · disclosed 2016-06-22
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested multicoloured wafer cone lacked novelty and individual character over the earlier Tikkido rainbow-cone disclosures and that designer freedom for cone decoration was high.
- ›The holder replied that the Tikkido material showed a tutorial or method rather than a design, would not normally reach the relevant specialised circles, and in any event differed in colouring, coverage, and stripe orientation.
- ›The Division held that the internet and social-media disclosures were technically accessible and could reasonably become known to specialised circles, and that the prior cone was sufficiently clearly identified as a design.
- ›It found high designer freedom and concluded that the shared rainbow layered decoration created the same overall impression despite differences in stripe definition and colour transitions, so the contested design lacked individual character.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
- MemberCarlos MATEO PÉREZ
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| itItalian | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129539 vs MOHAMAR JAMOU | 2026-01-14 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000126695 vs IKOONA SP. Z O.O. | 2025-10-28 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000127155 vs McLLOYD'S s.r.o. | 2025-08-18 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000127156 vs McLLOYD'S s.r.o. | 2025-08-18 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000127157 vs McLLOYD'S s.r.o. | 2025-08-18 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000126116 vs IZVOR COMERCIAL INVEST SRL | 2025-02-17 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000120413 vs Hristo Shiderov | 2025-02-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000126097 vs EYADA GLOBAL SYSTEM GROUP | 2024-10-25 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |