Invalidity · first instance · 2026-03-06

000127355

Contested design: 006688404-0001

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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. 006688404-0001 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

Kocsis és Szénássy Ügyvédi Iroda

Holder · RCD owner

Henkel AG & Co. KGaA

Germany (DE)

Düsseldorf, Deutschland

Represented by

Jörg Schmidt

Prior art cited (9)

Publication1⚠ rejected as evidence

Henkel press release presenting 'Persil Discs: Deutschlands erstes 4-Kammern-System' with product images

Henkel press release · disclosed 2019-05-28

Other2⚠ rejected as evidence

Email correspondence stating Henkel 4in1 detergent capsules were launched in Germany on 2019-07-01; no design images shown

Henkel employee email correspondence · disclosed 2024-05-22

Web disclosure3⚠ rejected as evidence

Amazon.de listing for 'Persil 4in1 Discs' with product image

ASIN B07SHFYQH2 · amazon.de · disclosed 2019-06-30

Web disclosure4⚠ rejected as evidence

Customer reviews for the Persil 4in1 Discs Amazon.de listing

ASIN B07SHFYQH2 reviews · amazon.de · disclosed 2019-07-06

Prior use5⚠ rejected as evidence

Arzenal Ltd invoice for 'Pro Clean Oxi Persil detergent 38 count' with attached product photos

Arzenal Ltd invoice · disclosed 2018-10-01

Prior use6⚠ rejected as evidence

Arzenal Ltd invoice for 'Pro Clean Oxi Persil detergent 38 count' and 'Pro Clean Oxi High Persil detergent 38count' with attached product photos

Arzenal Ltd invoice · disclosed 2018-10-01

Web disclosure7⚠ rejected as evidence

Google and barcodeindex.com search results for the product code shown in Annex 6

Google / barcodeindex.com

Web disclosure8⚠ rejected as evidence

Amazon.com listing for 'Persil Discs Laundry Detergent Pacs, Original, 16 Count' with product image

ASIN B07PMQQ216 · amazon.com · disclosed 2019-03-05

Other9⚠ rejected as evidence

Photograph of a screen showing a dm Drogeriemarkt spreadsheet allegedly listing Persil Discs products

dm Drogeriemarkt spreadsheet photo · disclosed 2019-05-23

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)Article 14(3)Article 17

Argument summary

›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on product images, invoices, Amazon listings, barcode searches, and related materials allegedly disclosing the same detergent capsule before filing.
›The holder argued that all cited disclosures derived from Henkel or its information and fell within the 12-month grace period, while the applicant had not rebutted Henkel's status as the designers' successor in title.
›The Division held that the cited materials showed disclosures attributable to the holder, that Articles 14 and 17 supported the holder's entitlement, and that the applicant had not produced convincing evidence to displace that position.
›Because all dated disclosures fell within the grace period before the 2019-08-07 filing date, none could be considered relevant earlier designs under Articles 5 and 6.
›The invalidity application was therefore rejected and costs were awarded to the holder.

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

07.05

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