Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-07-05
R2400/2018-3
Contested design: 002945238-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings are borne by the holder.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1. Il ricorso è respinto; 2. Le spese sostenute dalla richiedente nei procedimenti di nullità e di ricorso sono poste a carico della titolare.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Ottaviani S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Strada Consortile Agglomerato Industriale, Strada Secondaria A/5, 04014 Pontinia (LT), Italia
Represented by
Giacomo Ciammaglichella
Holder · RCD owner
Orogel Società Cooperativa Agricolavia PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Dismano, 2830, Fraz. Pievesestina, 47522 Cesena (FC), Italia
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
web page showing an artichoke heart
http://cucina.fanpage.it/un-contorno-primaverile-carciofi-alla-romana/ · cucina.fanpage.it · disclosed 2014-03-24
Amazon page offered as prior disclosure of the same artichoke-heart form
Amazon 'vendita carciofi Roland Foods 2014' · Amazon · disclosed 2013-02-12
YouTube video image relied on as prior disclosure of the same artichoke-heart form
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZHJc_btIGE · YouTube · disclosed 2014-02-14
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested frozen artichoke-heart design lacked validity because its appearance was natural or technically driven and because the same form had already been disclosed online and in market offerings.
- ›The holder argued that the product was an industrially processed frozen artichoke heart with harmonious and symmetrical aesthetic features and that the applicant’s internet evidence was unreliable or undated.
- ›The Board found that proof no. 1 sufficiently disclosed the earlier model and that the contested design reproduced the typical artichoke-heart form with only minimal differences caused by ordinary further processing such as trimming and precooking.
- ›The appeal was dismissed, the lack of individual character finding stood, and costs were awarded against the holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberM. Bra
- RegistrarR. Vidal
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R2328/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R0789/2024-3 | 2025-07-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| 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 |
| R1125/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |