Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-05-16
R2286/2020-3
Contested design: 005650546-0005
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 capsule conflicted with its earlier RCD because the top-view arrangement of the compartments conveyed the same rotating-wheel impression.
- ›The design holder answered that the contested capsule differed materially because it had five compartments rather than four, a different compartment shape, different spacing and a flatter overall surface.
- ›The Board agreed with the Invalidity Division that those differences in the number and shape of the exterior compartments and in the surface height profile produced a clearly different overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity application remained rejected.
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 |
| R2282/2020-3 | 2022-05-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(d) | — | 5 |
| R2283/2020-3 | 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 |