Common use of Grounds for refusal Clause in Contracts

Grounds for refusal. The industrial design applied for registration does not meet the provisions of the Article 8 of the Law on the Protection of Industrial Design No. 161/2007, because the overall impression it produces on the informed user is not different from the overall impression produced on such a user by the industrial design from EUIPO, (11) 000864764-0064, deposit date (▇▇) ▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇▇, publication date (▇▇) ▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇▇, owner: ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ GmbH + Co. KG, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇. ▇▇, ▇-▇▇▇▇▇ Welzheim, ALEMANIA. (LAW of the Republic of Moldova on the Protection of Industrial Design No. 161/2007, Art. 26 (1) b) ) (1) An industrial design shall be considered to have individual character if the overall impression that it presents to an informed user is different from the overall impression that would be presented to such a user by any other industrial design already publicly known within the meaning of Article 10: a) in the case of a registered industrial design – before the filing date of the application for registration or, if priority is being claimed, before the date of priority; or b) in the case of an unregistered industrial design – before the date of first disclosure of the industrial design for which protection is requested. (2) In assessing individuality, account shall be taken of the degree of the author’s freedom in creating the industrial design, given the nature of the article and the specifics of the industrial or craft sector in question. Art. 26. (1) A design shall be refused registration, or, if the design has been registered, the design right shall be declared invalid: b) if it does not fulfil the requirements of Articles 7-11.

Grounds for refusal. The industrial design designs no. 1, 2, 3, applied for registration does do not meet the provisions of the Article 8 of the Law on the Protection of Industrial Design No. 161/2007, because the overall impression it produces on the informed user is not different differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by the industrial design designs from EUIPOWIPO, (11) 000864764-0064DM/081890, designs no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, deposit date (▇▇) ▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇▇, publication date (▇▇) ▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇▇, owner: Intersnack Group GmbH & Co. KG, ▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ GmbH + Co. KG, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇. ▇▇, ▇-▇▇▇▇▇ Welzheim, ALEMANIA(DE). (LAW of the Republic of Moldova on the Protection of Industrial Design No. 161/2007, Art. 26 (1) b) ) (1) An industrial design shall be considered to have individual character if the overall impression that it presents to an informed user is different from the overall impression that would be presented to such a user by any other industrial design already publicly known within the meaning of Article 10: a) in the case of a registered industrial design – before the filing date of the application for registration or, if priority is being claimed, before the date of priority; or b) in the case of an unregistered industrial design – before the date of first disclosure of the industrial design for which protection is requested. (2) In assessing individuality, account shall be taken of the degree of the author’s freedom in creating the industrial design, given the nature of the article and the specifics of the industrial or craft sector in question. Art. 26. (1) A design shall be refused registration, or, if the design has been registered, the design right shall be declared invalid: b) if it does not fulfil the requirements of Articles 7-11.

Grounds for refusal. The industrial design applied for registration does not meet the provisions of the Article 8 7 of the Law on the Protection of Industrial Design No. 161/2007, because the overall impression it produces on the informed user is not different its significant features differ only in non-essential details from the overall impression produced on such a user by features of the industrial design from EUIPOfrom: - UA, (11) 000864764-006435402, deposit date (▇▇) ▇▇.▇▇.▇▇.▇▇, publication date (▇▇) ▇▇▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇▇, owner: ТОВАРИСТВО З ОБМЕЖНОЮ ВIДПОВIДАЛЬНIСТЮ «АКАМА» ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ GmbH + Co. KG, .▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇, ▇. ▇▇м. Днiпро, ▇-▇▇▇▇▇ Welzheim, ALEMANIA. 49022 (UA) (LAW of the Republic of Moldova on the Protection of Industrial Design No. 161/2007, Art. 26 (1) b) ) (1) An industrial individual design shall be considered to have individual character novel if the overall impression that it presents to an informed user is different from the overall impression that would be presented to such a user by any other no identical industrial design already has become publicly known within the meaning of Article 10: a) in the case of a registered industrial design – before the filing date of the application for registration or, if priority is being claimed, before the date of priority; or b) in the case of an unregistered industrial design – before the date of first disclosure priority of the industrial design for which protection is requested. ; (2) In assessing individualityFor the purposes of paragraph (1), account industrial designs shall be taken of the degree of the author’s freedom deemed identical if their significant features differ only in creating the industrial design, given the nature of the article and the specifics of the industrial or craft sector in questionnon-essential details. Art. 26. (1) A design shall be refused registration, or, if the design has been registered, the design right shall be declared invalid: b) if it does not fulfil the requirements of Articles 7-11.

Grounds for refusal. The industrial design applied for registration does not meet the provisions of the Article 8 of the Law on the Protection of Industrial Design No. 161/2007, because the overall impression it produces on the informed user is not different differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by the industrial design from EUIPOPL, registration number 20029 (11) 000864764-0064No. 2), deposit date (▇▇) ▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇▇15.04.2013, publication date (▇▇) ▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇▇28.11.2013, owner: ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ GmbH + Co. KGMULTIFARB SPÓŁKA Z OGRANICZONĄ ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚCIĄ, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇. ▇▇Rzeszów, ▇-▇▇▇▇▇ Welzheim, ALEMANIA. PL (LAW of the Republic of Moldova on the Protection of Industrial Design No. 161/2007, Art. 26 (1) b) )) (1) An industrial design shall be considered to have individual character if the overall impression that it presents to an informed user is different from the overall impression that would be presented to such a user by any other industrial design already publicly known within the meaning of Article 10: a) in the case of a registered industrial design – before the filing date of the application for registration or, if priority is being claimed, before the date of priority; or b) in the case of an unregistered industrial design – before the date of first disclosure of the industrial design for which protection is requested. (2) In assessing individuality, account shall be taken of the degree of the author’s freedom in creating the industrial design, given the nature of the article and the specifics of the industrial or craft sector in question. Art. 26. (1) A design shall be refused registration, or, if the design has been registered, the design right shall be declared invalid: b) if it does not fulfil the requirements of Articles 7-11.