Invalidity · first instance · 2026-03-06
000127341
Contested design: 006686580-0003
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. 006686580-0003 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 (4)
invoices and product photos for "Dixan 3in1 total" washing capsules
MOLDOVÁN CONSULTING Kft. invoices · disclosed 2016-08-23
invoice and product photos for "LE CHAT Blanc 3in1" / "Le Chat Trio-Bulles L’Expert" washing capsules
3178041355971 · Power-Washing Kft. invoice · disclosed 2016-05-13
Google search results for the LE CHAT product barcode/article number
3178041355971 · Google Search · disclosed 2024-09-30
screen photo of an Excel table referring to "Persil Discs Color" and "Persil Discs Regular"
dm Drogeriemarkt spreadsheet screenshot · disclosed 2019-05-23
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, alleging earlier disclosures of equivalent washing-capsule designs before the 5 August 2019 filing date.
- ›The holder denied any pre-filing disclosure, challenged the authenticity and linkage of the invoices and photos, and argued the three-chamber products were launched only from 2021 onward.
- ›The Division found the invoices, photos, Google results, and spreadsheet screenshot did not reliably link the depicted products to the claimed 2016 dates or otherwise prove public disclosure under Article 7(1).
- ›Because prior disclosure was not proven, the Article 25(1)(b) invalidity grounds failed and the invalidity application was rejected with costs against the applicant.
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 |