DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006686580-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-03-06

000127358

Contested design: 006686580-0004

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. 006686580-0004 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

Holder · RCD owner

Henkel AG & Co. KGaA

Germany (DE)

Düsseldorf, Deutschland

Represented by

Jörg Schmidt

Prior art cited (3)

Prior useAnlage 1⚠ rejected as evidence

Dixan 3in1 total detergent capsules

Rechnungen N10-000018/16 und N10-000017/16 · MOLDOVÁN CONSULTING Kft. invoices · disclosed 2016-08-23

Prior useAnlage 2⚠ rejected as evidence

LE CHAT Blanc 3in1 / Trio-Bulles detergent capsules

Invoice SZ2016/0020 / GTIN 3178041355971 · Power-Washing Kft. invoice · disclosed 2016-05-13

Prior useAnlage 4⚠ rejected as evidence

Persil Discs Color and Persil Discs Regular

dm Drogeriemarkt screen photo / Excel table · 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)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the contested detergent-capsule design lacked novelty and individual character because identical or non-distinctive earlier capsule designs had been disclosed before the filing date.
  • The holder denied any pre-filing disclosure, challenged the authenticity and dating of the invoices and images, and argued three-chamber capsules were only launched from 2021 onward.
  • The Division found the invoices, undated product images, Google search results, and screen photo did not objectively link the claimed earlier product appearances to the alleged dates of disclosure.
  • Because disclosure of the alleged earlier designs was not proven under Article 7(1), the invalidity grounds failed and the application was rejected with costs against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberIvan PRANDZHEV

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload 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.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129481

vs Oro-Kong GmbH

2026-05-27Art 25(1)(b)077
000129484

vs Oro-Kong GmbH

2026-05-26Art 25(1)(b)077
000129502

vs Oro-Kong GmbH

2026-05-26Art 25(1)(b)077
000129482

vs Oro-Kong GmbH

2026-05-26Art 25(1)(b)077
000129503

vs Oro-Kong GmbH

2026-05-26Art 25(1)(b)077
000129483

vs Oro-Kong GmbH

2026-05-26Art 25(1)(b)077
000129501

vs Oro-Kong GmbH

2026-05-26Art 25(1)(b)077
000130704

vs Shenzhen Yisi Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-05-22Art 25(1)(b)077