Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-01-14
R1070/2018-3
Contested design: 003797091-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the costs incurred by the design holder.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the fees and costs incurred by the design holder.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
BIBITA GROUP SHPKvia PDF extraction
AL
Rruga e Bogdaneve, Pall. EUROCOL, Kati V, Tirana, Albania
Represented by
Riccardo Ciullo
Holder · RCD owner
"БЕНКОМЕРС" ООДvia PDF extraction
Bulgaria (BG)
р-н Възраждане, ул. "СРЕДНА ГОРА" No 127, ет. 1, 1510 СОФИЯ, Bulgaria
Represented by
Rositsa Stoyanova
Prior art cited (1)
Beverage container (dumbbell-shaped bottle) owned by BIBITA GROUP SHPK; filing date 28 September 2016, publication date 31 March 2017
International design registration No DM/095 336 · WIPO Global Design Database · disclosed 2016-09-28
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (Bibita Group) argued that the contested beverage-bottle RCD (dumbbell shape) lacked individual character over its earlier international design DM/095 336, claiming the shared dumbbell form, proportions, and product category produce the same overall impression; the fine linear patterns on the contested RCD were said to be of minor importance.
- ›The design holder filed no observations in the appeal; the Invalidity Division had rejected the application finding the contested RCD's distinctive linear pattern markings and indentations sufficiently differentiated it from the prior design.
- ›The Board endorsed the Invalidity Division's analysis: the most eye-catching characteristic of the contested RCD is not the shared dumbbell structure but the fine linear patterns absent from the prior design; together with indentation differences, the designs produce a clearly different overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the overall impression produced by the contested RCD differs from that of the prior design; invalidity applicant bears costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberC. Negro
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0536/2025-3 | 2025-09-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0538/2025-3 | 2025-09-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2063/2021-3 | 2022-07-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0363/2021-3 | 2022-07-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0051/2017-3 | 2021-12-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1855/2020-3 | 2021-07-02 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1856/2020-3 | 2021-06-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2837/2019-3 | 2020-11-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |