Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-03-04
R2360/2018-3
Contested design: 002034009-0001
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
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 design application No D612,990 S · USPTO · disclosed 2010-03-30
Cleaning sponges
RCD No 1 737 206-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2010-12-10
Sponges (household)
RCD No 288 733-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2005-04-05
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (Aroma Essence) appealed the rejection of its invalidity application, arguing that the contested RCD for washing sponges lacks individual character because all competing designs (D1–D3) are rectangular sponges with a wide light layer and a thinner dark layer in a 1:4 ratio; it further argued that the holes are purely functional and that the contested RCD has no distinct top or bottom.
- ›The design holder (REFAN) argued that the RCD possesses individual character, distinguished by its specific configuration of layers, colour contrast and density of sponge holes, and that the informed user includes professionals who pay attention to fine details; it also noted a prior favourable invalidity decision involving the same parties.
- ›The Board confirmed that all prior designs were properly disclosed. It found that the contested RCD and each of D1, D2 and D3 differ in the configuration and proportions of their layers, colour contrasts and density of sponge holes; these differences are clearly perceived by the informed user. Sponge holes, even if partly functional, may still serve as differentiating design features.
- ›The Board upheld the first-instance rejection: the contested RCD produces a different overall impression from each prior design and therefore possesses individual character; the appeal was dismissed.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- MemberG. Humphreys
- MemberM. Bra
- Registrarp.o. N. Granado Carpenter
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 |