Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-05-24
R0643/2021-3
Contested design: 003237197-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
LieBee GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Neue Promenade 5, 10178 Berlin, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Göbber GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Bahnhofstr. 40, 27324 Eystrup, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
Gläserhalter für Getränke [ausgenommen Spender]; Schalen
RCD No 979075-0009 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2008-09-05
Tiegel für Kosmetika
RCD No 1896630-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
Schachteln [Verpackung]; Tiegel für Kosmetika; Schachteln; Schalen [Verpackung]; Verpackung und Aufmachung von Kosmetikprodukten
RCD No 2229898-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2013-05-06
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested jam-jar design lacked individual character over earlier container designs D1 to D3 and that the screw cap should carry little weight because it mainly served a technical closure function.
- ›The design holder maintained that the transparent glass body, metallic screw cap, grooves, recess and proportions of the contested design created a distinct impression from the earlier opaque and differently configured containers.
- ›The Board found a high degree of design freedom and held that the contested design's transparent body, metallic screw cap and specific proportions and details clearly distinguished it from each of D1 to D3.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the rejection of the invalidity application was confirmed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH.Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0489/2022-3 | 2023-12-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2289/2022-3 | 2023-12-13 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0878/2022-3 | 2023-02-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0647/2021-3 | 2022-05-24 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0056/2020-3 | 2021-04-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0656/2020-3 | 2021-01-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1635/2019-3 | 2020-10-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |