DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008657357-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-10-09

000126064

Contested design: 008657357-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld, Registered Community design No 008657357-0001 is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Dem Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung wird stattgegeben. 2. Das eingetragene Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster Nr. 008657357-0001 wird für nichtig erklärt. 3. Die Inhaberin trägt die Kosten, die auf 750 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Association GYIvia PDF extraction

France (FR)

78, allée Primavera Centre Ubidoca 20837, 74370 Annecy, Frankreich

Represented by

Agency Arnopatents

Holder · RCD owner

Stada Arzneimittel AGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Stadastr. 2-18, 61118 Bad Vilbel, Deutschland

Represented by

Harmsen Utescher

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosureD1

Archived web images of the earlier AGNUS CASTUS AL / ALIUD PHARMA packaging design

https://web.archive.org/web/20160116234910/http://www.aliud.de/arzneimittel/rezeptfreie-arzneimittel/agnus-castus-al/ ; https://web.archive.org/web/20160506115414im_/https://fachwelt.aliud.de/umbraco/api/resource/getpublicimage?id=15128 · Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2016-01-16

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, arguing that identical earlier design D1 had already been disclosed online before the filing date.
  • To prove disclosure, the applicant filed Internet Archive Wayback Machine screenshots from January and May 2016 showing the earlier packaging design.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found D1 publicly disclosed under Article 7(1) and considered the contested design identical apart from an immaterial shade difference.
  • The invalidity ground under Article 25(1)(b) with Articles 4(1) and 5(1)(b) succeeded, so the design was invalidated and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

32.00

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000127735

vs CATTELAN ITALIA S.P.A.

2026-02-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)328
000130984

vs qin xi

2026-02-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)328
000124695

vs W.R. Lang GmbH

2025-01-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)328
000124696

vs SOG®Systeme GmbH & Co. KG

2025-01-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)328
000124718

vs SOG®Systeme GmbH & Co. KG

2025-01-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)328
000126078

vs STADA Arzneimittel AG

2024-10-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)328
000124755

vs Werner Volker Gumm

2024-06-20REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)328
000124719

vs Werner Volker Gumm

2024-06-14REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)328