Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-05-20
R1209/2018-3
Contested design: 003465947-0003
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the design holder's costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Revolution Beauty Holdings Limitedvia PDF extraction
United Kingdom (GB)
2-3 Sheet Glass Road, Cullet Drive, Queenborough, Kent ME11 5JS, United Kingdom
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Unicorn Cosmetics Limitedvia PDF extraction
United Kingdom (GB)
Unit 8, Lakeside Park, Neptune Close, Rochester ME2 4LT, United Kingdom
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Instagram post by tartecosmetics showing cosmetic brushes with unicorn-horn-shaped handles
https://www.instagram.com/p/BKWfyW7hsHK/ · Instagram (tartecosmetics account) · disclosed 2016-09-14
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (appellant) appealed the rejection of its invalidity application, arguing the Invalidity Division denied it the procedural opportunity to substantiate its Instagram prior-art evidence; it submitted a representative's witness statement and additional evidence at appeal stage.
- ›The design holder argued the new evidence was inadmissible and, even if admitted, did not establish prior disclosure; it also challenged the evidential weight of the representative's own statement and the reliability of hyperlinked material.
- ›The Board decided irrespective of whether disclosure was proven, the contested RCD possessed individual character over the alleged prior designs: brush heads, ferrules, and handles all differed sufficiently to produce distinct overall impressions on the informed user.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the applicant was ordered to bear the holder's costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberE. Fink
- Registrarp.o. M. Chaleva
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 |