Invalidity · first instance · 2026-03-06
000127338
Contested design: 006688404-0003
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen EU-Geschmacksmusters Nr. 006688404-0003 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Santé Magyarország Korlátolt Felelősségű Társaságvia PDF extraction
Hungary (HU)
Szada, Ungarn
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Henkel AG & Co. KGaA
Germany (DE)
Düsseldorf, Deutschland
Represented by
Jörg Schmidt
Prior art cited (7)
Henkel press release presenting “Persil Discs: Deutschlands erstes 4-Kammern-System” with product images
Henkel press release · disclosed 2019-05-28
amazon.de listing for “Persil 4in1 Discs” with product image
ASIN B07SHFYQH2 · amazon.de · disclosed 2019-06-30
Arzenal Ltd. invoice for “Pro Clean Oxi Persil detergent 38 count” with attached product photographs
Arzenal Ltd. · disclosed 2018-10-01
Arzenal Ltd. invoice for “Pro Clean Oxi Persil detergent 38 count” and “Pro Clean Oxi High Persil detergent 38count” with attached product photographs
Arzenal Ltd. · disclosed 2018-10-01
Google and barcodeindex.com search results for the barcode of “Pro Clean Oxi High Persil detergent 38count”
Google / barcodeindex.com
amazon.com listing for “Persil Discs Laundry Detergent Pacs, Original, 16 Count” with product image
ASIN B07PMQQ216 · amazon.com · disclosed 2019-03-05
Photograph of a spreadsheet screen said to show dm Drogeriemarkt listings for Persil Discs Color and Persil Discs Regular
dm Drogeriemarkt spreadsheet photograph · disclosed 2019-05-23
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested detergent-capsule design lacked novelty and individual character because identical or highly similar Persil capsule designs had been disclosed before filing.
- ›The holder replied that all cited disclosures came from it or from information traceable to it and fell within the 12-month grace period under Article 7(2).
- ›The Division accepted that the cited disclosures were attributable to the holder and found the applicant had not rebutted the holder's entitlement as employer and registered proprietor.
- ›Because no cited disclosure predated the grace-period window before 7 August 2019, none could invalidate the design; the invalidity application was rejected with costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberIvan PRANDZHEV
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129481 vs Oro-Kong GmbH | 2026-05-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000129484 vs Oro-Kong GmbH | 2026-05-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000129502 vs Oro-Kong GmbH | 2026-05-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000129482 vs Oro-Kong GmbH | 2026-05-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000129503 vs Oro-Kong GmbH | 2026-05-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000129483 vs Oro-Kong GmbH | 2026-05-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000129501 vs Oro-Kong GmbH | 2026-05-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000130704 vs Shenzhen Yisi Technology Co., Ltd. | 2026-05-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |