Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-12-07
R1471/2019-3
Contested design: 002057620-0005
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's fees and costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the fees and costs incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
WIDMANN S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Viale dell'Industria 3/C, 20020 Busto Garolfo (MI), Italy
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Worldwide Dynasty Inc.via PDF extraction
United States (US)
20630 Superior Street, Chatsworth California 91311, United States of America
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
glasses with moustache pendant
www.diveroo.com article 'Mustache Sunglasses - Silly Halloween Gift' · diveroo.com · disclosed 2011-09-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued that the costume-mask registration was validly priority-claimed, that the Internet disclosures were unreliable or self-disclosures within the grace period, and that the cited moustache-glasses designs created different overall impressions.
- ›The invalidity applicant maintained that multiple web disclosures predated filing and that at least one earlier moustache-glasses design destroyed the contested RCD's individual character.
- ›The Board accepted disclosure of prior design D1 and found the coinciding shape and arrangement of the glasses and moustache pendant decisive, while the minor differences in chain length, lenses and extra views had limited impact.
- ›The prior design destroyed individual character, so the appeal was dismissed and the design holder was ordered to bear costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberE. Fink
- Registrarp.o. R. Vidal
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 |