Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-07-09
R0122/2016-3
Contested design: 002188821-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder is ordered to bear the fees and costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the fees and costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
FALROSE EOUITY POLAND SP. Z.O.O.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ulica Nowogrodzka 47A, 00-695 Warszawa, Poland
Represented by
Paweł Piotr Halwa
Holder · RCD owner
HARPER HYGIENICS SAvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Aleje Jerozolimskie 142A, 02-305 Warszawa, Poland
Represented by
Robert Lis
Prior art cited (1)
Box (rectangular container with lid featuring a rectangular pivotal flap) — prior design, owned by invalidity applicant, filed and published 18 March 2009
PL No 14553 · Patent Office of the Republic of Poland, Designs Bulletin No 11/2009 · disclosed 2009-11-30
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder (appellant) appealed the first-instance invalidation of the contested RCD (a container lid with a wine-glass shaped pivotal flap) for lack of individual character. It argued the sector is crowded/saturated, consumer surveys showed 95% of participants distinguish the designs, certain features are technically dictated and should be discounted, and the Invalidity Division ignored relevant evidence.
- ›The invalidity applicant (respondent) maintained the wide freedom of the designer for container lids in Class 9.7, that late-filed evidence by the holder was inadmissible, and that the wine-glass flap shape is only one minor difference that cannot offset all coinciding features.
- ›The Board defined the product sector as container lids generally (not cotton-bud lids specifically), confirmed wide designer freedom, and found the two designs share nearly all features — rectangular lid, identical tilting-flap mechanism, hinge placement, closing elements, transparent material — differing only in the flap shape (wine-glass vs rectangular) and minor details insufficient to overcome the predominant similarities.
- ›The appeal is dismissed; the RCD lacks individual character over Polish prior design PL 14553; the holder bears costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurG. Humphreys
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1913/2016-3 | 2018-01-31 | Decision Confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0181/2025-3 | 2025-05-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |
| R0827/2024-3 | 2025-03-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |
| R0797/2024-3 | 2025-01-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |
| R1123/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |
| R1125/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |
| R1124/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |