Invalidity · first instance · 2026-03-06
000127375
Contested design: 006686580-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen EU-Geschmacksmusters Nr. 006686580-0001 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
Holder · RCD owner
Henkel AG & Co. KGaA
Germany (DE)
Düsseldorf, Deutschland
Represented by
Jörg Schmidt
Prior art cited (3)
Dixan 3in1 total washing detergent capsules
Invoices dated 23/08/2016 for "Dixan 3in1 total (12db)" · MOLDOVÁN CONSULTING Kft. invoices · disclosed 2016-08-23
LE CHAT Blanc 3in1 / Trio-Bulles washing detergent capsules
Invoice dated 13/05/2016 for "LE CHAT Blanc 3in1 30db-os" and GTIN 3178041355971 · Power-Washing Kft. invoice and related Google search results · disclosed 2016-05-13
Persil Discs Color and Persil Discs Regular retail listing/table entry
alleged dm Drogeriemarkt screen photo / Excel table · disclosed 2019-05-23
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant claimed the contested detergent capsule design lacked novelty and individual character because identical or near-identical capsules had already been disclosed before filing.
- ›The holder denied any pre-filing disclosure, argued the three-chamber capsules were only developed and launched from 2021 onward, and challenged the invoices, images, and GTIN evidence as unreliable.
- ›The Division found the invoices did not reliably link to the pictured products, the photos and Google results were undated and lacked provenance, and the additional screen-photo evidence was irrelevant.
- ›Because disclosure of the alleged earlier designs under Article 7(1) was not proven, the invalidity grounds failed and the application was rejected.
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 |