DesignVerdict
← Back to search
Contested design 015068162-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-06-29

000131625

Contested design: 015068162-0001

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity of EU design No 015068162-0001 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 0150681620001 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 screenshots)⚠ rejected as evidence

YouTube video stills dated 07/04/2023 showing steel coil packages (multiple designs, not individually identified)

YouTube · disclosed 2023-04-07

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 (three views including top view showing exposed central opening) for lack of novelty and individual character over industry guides and online sources from 2007 onwards; claimed the design merely represents a standard coil packaging method.
  • Holder did not submit observations in reply.
  • Division admitted only D1 (SeAH Steel 2007) and D2 (Dongbu Steel 2011) as properly disclosed; YouTube screenshots from Annex 5 were rejected as too blurry, too small or showing multiple unidentified designs; designer freedom found average due to cylindrical coil constraint.
  • Decisive difference: the contested design features a prominent exposed central circular opening that D1 and D2 do not have; combined with differences in number of transverse bands (5 vs 4 and 3) and other features, the contested design produces a different overall impression; 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

09.0209.0309.08

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131606

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