Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-10-30
R0227/2019-3
Contested design: 003837475-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder is ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's costs totalling EUR 1 250.
Show verbatim operative text
Dismisses the appeal; Orders the design holder to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings; Fixes the costs to be reimbursed by the design holder to the invalidity applicant for the invalidity and appeal proceedings at EUR 1 250.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €1,250
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Tokaji Borvidék Hegyközségi Tanácsavia PDF extraction
Hungary (HU)
Dózsa György utca 2., 3910 Tokaj, Hungary
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
IPACSvia PDF extraction
Hungary (HU)
Garai J. u. 11/B., 3300 Eger, Hungary
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Three-dimensional trade mark for wine bottles, registered for wines from the area of appellation of origin Tokaj
Hungarian trade mark No 211 533 · Hungarian Intellectual Property Office · disclosed 2014-01-14
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder (appellant) argued the Invalidity Division committed a procedural error by assessing individual character when the applicant only argued novelty; also that the designer's freedom was limited and the contested bottle design inspired by Aszú wine differs sufficiently from prior art.
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that a 'design' under Article 3(a) CDR need only be an 'appearance', not a separately registered design; and that the prior Hungarian 3D trade mark (No 211 533), published in 2014, was validly disclosed prior art producing the same overall impression on an informed user.
- ›The Board confirmed the Invalidity Division correctly examined individual character; found the Hungarian trade mark was a valid prior design under Article 7(1) CDR; and found the overall impression (bottle shape and embossed 'TOKAJ' element) the same, with differences in colour, label and capsule insufficient to distinguish them.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; costs (EUR 1 250) ordered against the design holder; the new Article 25(1)(e) ground raised on appeal was rejected as inadmissible.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- MemberM. Bra
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarM. Chaleva
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| 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 |