DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005650546-0004

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-05-16

R2283/2020-3

Contested design: 005650546-0004

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

Dosage packaging for washing agents

RCD No 3 619 717-0010 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2019-05-07

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(d)(i)Article 10

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the contested washing-product capsule conflicted with its earlier registered capsule design because the dominant top-view arrangement of curved outer compartments around a central compartment was the same.
  • The design holder answered that the earlier design, once its disclaimed outer dotted contour was ignored, did not show the same unified mono-dose capsule and differed in compartment count, spacing, tapering and surface structure.
  • The Board held that the contested RCD produced a different overall impression from the earlier registered design and therefore was not in conflict with it within the meaning of Article 25(1)(d)(i) CDR.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the first-instance rejection of the invalidity application was confirmed.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurM. Bra
  • MemberS. Rizzo
  • Registrarp.o. R. Vidal

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R1787/2021-32022-06-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(d)5
R2282/2020-32022-05-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(d)5
R2286/2020-32022-05-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(d)5
R2284/2020-32022-05-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(d)5
R2285/2020-32022-05-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(d)5
R2281/2020-32021-11-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(d)5
R0827/2020-32021-02-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(d)5
R2114/2019-32020-09-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(d)5