Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-05-24
R0647/2021-3
Contested design: 003237197-0002
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 (4)
Gläserhalter für Getränke [ausgenommen Spender]; Schalen
RCD No 979075-0009 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2008-09-05
Gläser (Trink- ); Gläserhalter für Getränke [ausgenommen Spender]
RCD No 979075-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2008-09-05
jar shown in 'Verpackungsglas/Containerjaws Katalog 2015'
Weck Glaswerk GmbH catalogue 2015, article 969 · Weck Glaswerk GmbH catalogue
jar/container design
International design No 00048054-0010 · International design register · disclosed 1999-08-31
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested open screw-top jam jar lacked individual character over earlier registered designs and later-cited catalogue and international-design disclosures, and that the thread at the top was technically dictated.
- ›The design holder answered that the contested design's transparent glass, outer thread, proportions and detailed shape features differed materially from the earlier opaque bowls and containers.
- ›The Board held that the informed user would perceive the contested design as an open screw-top jar, whereas D1 and D2 conveyed quite different bowl-like or insert-based impressions, and the applicant had not shown the thread to be a standardised feature devoid of design relevance.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity application remained rejected.
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 |
| R0643/2021-3 | 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 |