DesignVerdict
← Back to search
Contested design 015068162-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-06-29

000131606

Contested design: 015068162-0003

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity of EU design No 015068162-0003 is rejected; the applicant bears the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered EU design No 015068162-0003 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder's costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Metale Internationalvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

Focsani, Romania

Holder · RCD owner

Wistron Industrial Co., LTDvia PDF extraction

SC

Victoria Mahe, Seychelles

Prior art cited (5)

CatalogD1

SeAH Steel Corporation 'Electronic Galvanized Steel Coil & Sheet' guide, steel coil packing image

SeAH Steel Corporation · disclosed 2007-12-31

CatalogD2

Dongbu Steel guidelines 'GI/SGL/EGI/ALCOT', steel coil packing image

Dongbu Steel · disclosed 2011-12-31

CatalogAnnex 3

CMA CGM 'Technical Guidelines for STEEL COILS in ISO Containers'

CMA CGM · disclosed 2011-08-08

CatalogAnnex 4

TT CLUB guide 'Transport of Coiled Materials in Containers'

TT CLUB · disclosed 2016-12-31

Web disclosureAnnex 5 (YouTube/Facebook screenshots)⚠ rejected as evidence

YouTube and Facebook video stills of various coil packings (2014-2024); two designs underlined by applicant dated 13/05/2014 and 17/12/2021

YouTube / Facebook

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7

Argument summary

  • Applicant challenged steel coil packaging design (four views) for lack of novelty and individual character, submitting industry guides (2007-2016) and online video screenshots; argued the contested design is indistinguishable from prior coil packaging methods used in maritime transport for over 12 years.
  • Holder did not submit observations in reply.
  • Division admitted only D1 (SeAH Steel 2007) and D2 (Dongbu Steel 2011) as disclosed; two other invoked prior designs lacked source information; YouTube screenshots in Annex 5 were rejected as too small, blurry, or showing multiple stacked packages without clear identification of a specific prior design.
  • Comparison of the contested design against D1 and D2 revealed significant differences in number and arrangement of transverse bands (5 vs 3 and 4), presence of three circumferential bands in contested design vs none in D1 and two in D2, exposed white edge protectors, and different central opening diameter; contested design produces a different overall impression and has individual character and novelty; application rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ-ORLOVSKIENĖ
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberCarlos MATEO PÉREZ

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

09.0209.03

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131625

vs WISTRON INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD

2026-06-29Art 25(1)(b)097
000129508

vs Messerle GmbH

2026-04-23Art 25(1)(b)097
000129522

vs Messerle GmbH

2026-04-14Art 25(1)(b)097
000127995

vs Jaroslav Masopust

2026-02-06Art 25(1)(b)097
000129516

vs MOHAMAR JAMOU

2026-01-14Art 25(1)(b)097
000128115

vs GREEN TEAM EUROPE A/S

2025-11-20Art 25(1)(b)097
000123774

vs Gusta Garden GmbH

2024-11-06Art 25(1)(b)097
000123875

vs Multiple Products B.V.

2024-10-15Art 25(1)(b)097