Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-05-16
R2282/2020-3
Contested design: 005650546-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Henkel AG & Co. KGaAvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
IP Department (CLI), Henkelstrasse 67, 40589 Düsseldorf, Germany
Represented by
Jörg Schmidt
Holder · RCD owner
Reckitt Benckiser Finish B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Siriusdreef 14, 2132 WT Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Dosage packaging for washing agents
RCD No 3 619 717-0010 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2019-05-07
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested washing-product capsule was in conflict with its earlier registered capsule design because both shared the same wheel-like top view and basic compartment arrangement.
- ›The design holder replied that the prior design disclosed separate tapered compartments, not a single tightly packed mono-dose capsule like the contested RCD, and that the overall impressions were different.
- ›The Board agreed with the Invalidity Division that, once the disclaimed outer dotted contour of the earlier design was disregarded, the differences in compartment count, spacing, contour and surface gave the contested capsule a different overall impression.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the rejection of the invalidity application was confirmed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurM. Bra
- MemberS. Rizzo
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1787/2021-3 | 2022-06-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(d) | — | 5 |
| R2283/2020-3 | 2022-05-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(d) | — | 5 |
| R2286/2020-3 | 2022-05-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(d) | — | 5 |
| R2284/2020-3 | 2022-05-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(d) | — | 5 |
| R2285/2020-3 | 2022-05-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(d) | — | 5 |
| R2281/2020-3 | 2021-11-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(d) | — | 5 |
| R0827/2020-3 | 2021-02-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(d) | — | 5 |
| R2114/2019-3 | 2020-09-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(d) | — | 5 |