Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-10-20
R1635/2019-3
Contested design: 002839639-0004
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs incurred by the RCD holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Der Antragsteller trägt die der GGM-Inhaberin entstandenen Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Massimo Bellonivia PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Abate d'Adda 77, 20043 Arcore (MI), Italien
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Jelenia Plast sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Spoldzielcza 47, 58 500 Jelenia Gora, Polen
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
storage container marketed by Heidrun Europlastic Srl
DragonBox · action.nl, Action leaflets, Carrefour leaflet and Heidrun catalogue · disclosed 2013-03-11
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested household-container design lacked novelty and individual character over the earlier DragonBox container and also invoked Italian copyright, Article 25(1)(f) CDR.
- ›The holder contested the invalidity claims and argued that the compared containers created different overall impressions.
- ›The Board treated DragonBox as the only relevant earlier design and held that the immediately visible difference in the side walls was decisive: the contested RCD has a pronounced wave structure on both lid and sides, whereas DragonBox has smooth side walls.
- ›The appeal failed on novelty and individual character; the copyright ground was not pursued on appeal, and the applicant bears the costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurA. Szanyi Felkl
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1649/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 6(2), Art 6(1), Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 13 |
| R1648/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 6(2), Art 6(1), Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 13 |
| R1650/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 6(2) | — | 13 |
| R2349/2019-3 | 2020-09-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 6(2) | — | 11 |
| R0056/2020-3 | 2021-04-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |