Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-01-14
R2858/2019-3
Contested design: 004662815-0001
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
FICOSOTA FOOD EADvia PDF extraction
Bulgaria (BG)
Trakiyska Str. No. 10, 9700 Shumen, Bulgaria
Represented by
Kostadin Manev
Holder · RCD owner
The Bakers Company ADvia PDF extraction
Bulgaria (BG)
13 Industrialna Str., 9700 Shumen, Bulgaria
Represented by
Tsonka Ivanova Taushanova
Prior art cited (1)
toasted bread slice / cracker image
Bulgarian trade mark No 90 906 · Bulgarian Patent Office official bulletin · disclosed 2015-05-29
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued that the toasted-bread design differed from the Bulgarian trade mark image in texture, porosity, thickness and the lower pinch in the crust line.
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that both designs shared the same irregular oval bread-slice shape, colour combination and distinctive indentation in the crust, while the air pockets were technologically generated and of limited weight.
- ›The Board held that the prior trade-mark image had been publicly disclosed and that the exact air-pocket pattern was not a controlled design feature; the shared irregular oval shape, crust proportions and indentation dominated the comparison.
- ›The prior design destroyed individual character, so the appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the design holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberE. Fink
- Registrarp.o. M. Chaleva
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 |