Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-09-22
R2114/2019-3
Contested design: 005236445-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear costs totalling EUR 900 (invalidity and appeal proceedings combined).
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the fees and costs incurred by the design holder; 3. Fixes the amount of fees and costs to be paid by the invalidity applicant to the design holder with respect to the invalidity and appeal proceedings at EUR 900.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €900
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
CROCO SRLvia PDF extraction
Romania (RO)
Str. Slanicului nr. 12, Onesti, judetul Bacau, 601110 Onesti, Romania
Represented by
Irina Albusel
Holder · RCD owner
PHOENIX IND SAvia PDF extraction
Romania (RO)
Str. Mercur, Nr. 56, Jud. Braila, Braila, Romania
Represented by
Elena Grecu
Prior art cited (7)
Food packaging (biscuit packaging)
Romanian design No 020 292 · Official Industrial Property Bulletin – Designs and Models Section no. 2/2013, Romania · disclosed 2013-06-03
Press article showing Phoenix biscuit packaging, dated 23 February 2018
obiectivbr.ro article 'PHOENIX BISCUITS, TASTE OF THE PAST' · obiectivbr.ro · disclosed 2018-02-23
Packaging image dated 23 February (year not fully specified, context 2017)
Design holder's Facebook profile post · Facebook profile of PHOENIX IND SA
Packaging image dated 29 May 2017
Design holder's Facebook profile post · Facebook profile of PHOENIX IND SA · disclosed 2017-05-29
Packaging image dated 23 May 2017
Design holder's Facebook profile post · Facebook profile of PHOENIX IND SA · disclosed 2017-05-23
Packaging image dated 22 May 2017
Design holder's Facebook profile post · Facebook profile of PHOENIX IND SA · disclosed 2017-05-22
Design holder's website showing packaging image
phoenix-biscuiti.ro (via web archive, 11 April 2018) · web archive of phoenix-biscuiti.ro · disclosed 2018-04-11
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant (CROCO) appealed arguing the Invalidity Division had failed to assess novelty and individual character of the contested packaging RCD against the prior Romanian design No 020 292 under Article 25(1)(b) CDR, and that both designs produced the same overall impression; it also challenged the Article 25(1)(d) CDR analysis.
- ›Holder (PHOENIX) maintained that disclosures in Annex 4 fell within the Article 7(2) CDR grace period, that the prior Romanian design created a different overall impression (different colour shades, cookie arrangement, banners, figurative elements), and that the contested RCD was not in conflict with the Romanian design.
- ›The Board: (i) confirmed Annex 4 items excluded under Article 7(2) CDR; (ii) exercised Article 60(1) CDR power to decide the omitted Article 25(1)(b) comparison directly; (iii) found the designs produced different overall impressions due to significant differences in colour shades/arrangement, cookie depiction, banner position, and additional figurative elements; (iv) rejected Article 25(1)(d) ground because the Romanian design was published before (not after) the contested RCD's filing date, failing that norm's express condition.
- ›Appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to bear costs of EUR 900.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurG. Humphreys
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1787/2021-3 | 2022-06-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0116/2025-3 | 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 |