Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-02-26
R2361/2018-3
Contested design: 002034009-0009
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; 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
Aroma Essence Ltdvia PDF extraction
Bulgaria (BG)
rd "Vasil Levski" bl. 8, 6100 Kazanlak, Bulgaria
Represented by
Deyan Vulchev Ivanov
Holder · RCD owner
REFAN BULGARIA EOODvia PDF extraction
Bulgaria (BG)
Karlovsko shose, 52, Trud, Bulgaria
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
Soap bar with embedded sponge
US D612,990 S · USPTO · disclosed 2010-03-30
Cleaning sponges
RCD No 1 737 206-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin / DesignView · disclosed 2010-12-10
Sponges [household]
RCD No 288 733-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin / DesignView · disclosed 2005-04-05
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Invalidity applicant (Aroma Essence) appealed the Invalidity Division's rejection of its invalidity claim against washing sponge/soap bar RCD No 2 034 009-0009, arguing all conflicting designs are rectangular sponges with wide light layer and thinner dark layer in 1:4 ratio; holes are technical features not design features; the Invalidity Division incorrectly identified the informed user as a seller; the designs have no top/bottom orientation.
- ›Design holder (REFAN BULGARIA) argued the designs differ in overall shape (cubic vs rectangular), layer proportions, colour contrast and hole size/density; the product has a defined top and bottom; the informed user includes both professionals and consumers; the sponge holes are visible design features.
- ›The Board found the contested RCD and D1 differ in overall shape (broader cubic vs longer narrower rectangular), layer arrangement and ratio (thin dark base/large bright top vs inverse), and visible sponge holes creating irregular contour; the Board noted D2 was incorrectly represented in the contested decision (procedural error) but exercised jurisdiction to decide directly; the contested RCD also differs sufficiently from D2 (three layers vs two) and D3 (different proportions and hole density).
- ›Appeal dismissed; the contested RCD has individual character vis-à-vis all three prior designs; invalidity applicant bears costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- MemberG. Humphreys
- MemberM. Bra
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0952/2021-3 | 2024-09-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2140/2023-3 | 2024-08-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2585/2023-3 | 2024-08-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1745/2023-3 | 2024-06-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |