Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-03-02
R1565/2021-3
Contested design: 001941758-0004
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder’s costs.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Desestimar el recurso. 2. Ordenar que la solicitante de nulidad sufrague las costas de la titular.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €900
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Consorfrut S.L.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Javier Reynau San Pedro, Calle Eslida, 7, Entresuelo, 46026 Valencia, España
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Vercom SATvia PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Avenida de la Valldigna S/N, 46791 Benifairo de la Valldigna (Valencia), España
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
figurative packaging/ornament sign used for classes 16 and 31
Spanish figurative trademark No 2 793 309 · Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas · disclosed 2008-01-01
PLAFORM 60X40X24 PRIVILEGE / MONTAJE 60X40X24 PRIVILEGE packaging design shown with invoice
Cartonajes Levante, S.A. invoice · disclosed 2009-12-10
CAJA C/T MONT.LASER 300x200X105 BOLLO PRIVILEGE / TAPA BOLLO PRIVILEGE packaging designs shown with invoice
Obeikan Mdf España S.L.U. invoice · disclosed 2010-01-13
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant relied on an earlier Spanish figurative trade mark and 2009-2010 invoices showing packaging designs for BOLLO PRIVILEGE products.
- ›It argued that the contested packaging ornament repeated the same five coins, lettering, black background, and pink-edged circular arrangement seen in the earlier disclosures.
- ›The holder disputed both the legal significance and the visual comparison, and the Board found the alleged similarities insufficient to deprive the contested design of individual character.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the applicant had to bear the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 900 in total for invalidity and appeal representation.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 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 |
| R1745/2023-3 | 2024-06-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |