DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008663439-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-01-14

000129581

Contested design: 008663439-0002

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered EU design No 0086634390002 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

Anfs Distribution S.R.L.via PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

Bucuresti, Romania

Represented by

Adrian Căvescu

Holder · RCD owner

Mohamar Jamouvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

Sat Afumati, Comuna Afumati, Judet Ilfov, Romania

Represented by

Elena Grecu

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureDocument 1⚠ rejected as evidence

box with five 'jelly burgers' on a stick

Aram Sweet Facebook post · Facebook · disclosed 2021-03-03

Prior useDocument 2⚠ rejected as evidence

'Soft burger candy' product listing

commercial invoice issued by Desun Enterprise (HK) Co., Limited · Desun Enterprise (HK) Co., Limited · disclosed 2018-03-06

CatalogDocument 3⚠ rejected as evidence

quotation sheet including product No A-S303 candy product

quotation sheet issued by Desun Enterprise (HK) Co., Limited · Desun Enterprise (HK) Co., Limited · disclosed 2018-03-06

Prior useDocument 4⚠ rejected as evidence

affidavit asserting jelly burger candy product produced and sold since 2018

affidavit signed by director of Desun Enterprise (HK) Co., Limited · Desun Enterprise (HK) Co., Limited · disclosed 2025-03-20

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on a Facebook post, a 2018 invoice, a quotation sheet, and an affidavit concerning jelly burger candies.
  • The holder argued the evidence did not prove effective disclosure to the relevant EU circles and that the product depictions were unclear, unreliable, or unsupported by independent corroboration.
  • The Invalidity Division found the alleged prior designs were not clearly identified or depicted with sufficient precision, and the affidavit was too general and uncorroborated to prove disclosure.
  • Because disclosure under Article 7(1) EUDR was not established, the Division rejected the invalidity application without assessing novelty or individual character on the merits.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberDimitrios ANDRIANOPOULOS

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

01.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129516

vs MOHAMAR JAMOU

2026-01-14Art 25(1)(b)017
000127857

vs KDC Pomorzanka Sp. z o.o.

2025-11-03Art 25(1)(b)017
000123436

vs MOHAMAR JAMOU

2024-08-13Art 25(1)(b)017
000129539

vs MOHAMAR JAMOU

2026-01-14REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)015
000126695

vs IKOONA SP. Z O.O.

2025-10-28REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)015
000127157

vs McLLOYD'S s.r.o.

2025-08-18REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)015
000127156

vs McLLOYD'S s.r.o.

2025-08-18REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)015
000127155

vs McLLOYD'S s.r.o.

2025-08-18REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)015