Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-09-13
R1903/2017-3
Contested design: 002598516-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder is ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's fees and costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Order the design holder to bear the invalidity applicant's fees and costs.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Agritrans Service International SRLvia PDF extraction
Romania (RO)
Industriala nr. FN, Ovidiu, Romania
Represented by
Mariana Iorgulescu
Holder · RCD owner
ET Djili Soy SRLvia PDF extraction
Romania (RO)
31-35 Sinaia street, Stefanestii de Jos, Ilfov, Romania
Represented by
Ráducu Turtoi
Prior art cited (1)
graphic packaging
Romanian design No f 2010 0035 · Romania (INID code 43) · disclosed 2010-02-16
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Holder (appellant) argued the contested RCD produced a different overall impression from the prior Romanian design: different parrots, distinctive yellow margins, seed-filled oval, and that the design drew on the holder's own earlier rights.
- ›Invalidity applicant (respondent) argued the contested decision should be confirmed, noting the holder's trade mark had been annulled and that the designs are dominated by near-identical colourful parrot imagery in identical posture and position.
- ›The Board confirmed the Invalidity Division's findings on disclosure (not contested on appeal) and focused on individual character under Article 6 CDR, finding very high designer freedom for animal foodstuff labels.
- ›The Board found the shared features—large identical-posture parrot, oval background, 'Djili Soy'/'original' text placement, secondary parrot on right—outweigh the differences in parrot style, oval fill and colour margins, producing the same overall impression.
- ›Appeal dismissed; holder bears costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Negro
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0181/2025-3 | 2025-05-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0827/2024-3 | 2025-03-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0797/2024-3 | 2025-01-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1123/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1125/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1124/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1015/2024-3 | 2024-11-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |