DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006277935-0003

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-05-04

R0338/2021-3

Contested design: 006277935-0003

CDRAppellant: holdermedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Desestimar el recurso. 2. Ordenar que la titular sufrague las costas de la solicitante de nulidad.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

COLOM BAKERY EQUIPMENT, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Avenida Enrique Gimeno, 100, 12006 Castellón, España

Represented by

Ana Otero Iglesias

Holder · RCD owner

CIBERNÉTICA PARA LA PANIFICACIÓN, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Camino Els Lladres, 4 y 6, 12550 Almassora (Castellón), España

Represented by

Arcade & Asociados

Prior art cited (1)

PublicationD1

Earlier bread-making / weighing-divider machine

PANORAMA PANADERO and PASTRY REVOLUTION magazines; corroborated by YouTube videos

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6Article 7

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant relied on earlier disclosures of a bread-making/weighing-divider machine and argued that the contested RCD lacked novelty and individual character because the same machine had long been marketed.
  • The design holder challenged the proof of disclosure and argued that the machine shown in the cited materials was not clearly identifiable or differed in relevant details from the registered design.
  • The Board found that the earlier machine D1 had been sufficiently disclosed through Spanish trade magazines and corroborating YouTube videos and that the contested design reproduced the earlier machine's essential arbitrary appearance, producing the same overall impression.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the invalidation for lack of individual character was upheld.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurS. Rizzo
  • MemberH. Salmi
  • Registrarp.o. E. Apaolaza

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0181/2025-32025-05-27Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0827/2024-32025-03-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1336/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0797/2024-32025-01-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1123/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1125/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1124/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1015/2024-32024-11-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5