DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015010967-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-10-15

000123875

Contested design: 015010967-0001

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 015010967-0001 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

Vandenberg Special Products B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Alexander Bellstraat 10, 3261 LX Oud-Beijerland, Netherlands

Represented by

IPCO Law B.V.

Holder · RCD owner

Multiple Products B.V.

Netherlands (NL)

Middenweg 18, 4631 ST Hoogerheide, Netherlands

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDprior design 1

packaging for smokable articles / blotters

RCD No 000968664-0001 · EUIPO designs database / Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2008-07-29

Registered RCDprior design 2

packaging for smokable articles / blotters

RCD No 000863519-0001 · EUIPO designs database / Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2008-02-20

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7Article 25(1)(d)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested packaging design lacked novelty and individual character over its earlier RCDs and that Article 25(1)(d) also applied.
  • The holder replied that the decisive difference was the contested design's hexagonal shape and that several shared features were technically dictated by the packaging function.
  • The Division held that Article 25(1)(d) failed because the cited earlier RCDs had been published long before, not after, the contested design's filing date.
  • On the merits, the Division found the earlier designs were disclosed but created a different overall impression, especially because the contested design's hexagonal body and closure appearance differed.
  • The invalidity application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed representation costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberCarlos MATEO PÉREZ

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deGermanhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

09.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129508

vs Messerle GmbH

2026-04-23Art 25(1)(b)097
000129522

vs Messerle GmbH

2026-04-14Art 25(1)(b)097
000127995

vs Jaroslav Masopust

2026-02-06Art 25(1)(b)097
000129516

vs MOHAMAR JAMOU

2026-01-14Art 25(1)(b)097
000128115

vs GREEN TEAM EUROPE A/S

2025-11-20Art 25(1)(b)097
000126496

vs Jiangmen Xinhui Zhenghua Ironware Co., Ltd.

2025-03-07Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)097
000123774

vs Gusta Garden GmbH

2024-11-06Art 25(1)(b)097
000124459

vs Gusta Garden GmbH

2024-10-04Art 25(1)(b)097