Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-07-12
R0303/2021-3
Contested design: 006505194-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the holder must bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Inhaberin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Leonardo Leone GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Pappelweg 5, 89297 Roggenburg, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
GenTo GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Königstr. 62, 12105 Berlin, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
Jaimie Jacobs Flap Boy Slim wallet/card holder
ASIN B01MUDZBP6 · Amazon.de · disclosed 2015-11-19
MATADOR Magic Wallet slim wallet
ASIN B075ZXFL49 · Amazon.de · disclosed 2017-09-27
TRAVANDO Magic Wallet with coin pocket
ASIN B077STGSSJ · Amazon.de · disclosed 2017-11-28
URBANHELDEN Magic Wallet with RFID protection
ASIN B077TZFNJY · Amazon.de · disclosed 2017-11-30
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued that its wallet/card-holder design remained novel and individual because the cited Amazon wallet disclosures either were not proven or differed in visible features such as extra card slots and edging.
- ›The invalidity applicant maintained that the Flap Boy Slim and other Amazon-listed magic wallets had been publicly available before filing and created the same overall impression as the contested design.
- ›The Board found the Jaimie Jacobs Flap Boy Slim disclosure sufficiently proven and held that its foldable rectangular panels, crossed and parallel elastic bands, and parallel card slots destroyed the individual character of the contested design.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the holder was ordered to bear the costs in both instances.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurS. Stürmann
- MemberE. Fink
- Registrarp.o. M. Chaleva
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1338/2019-3 | 2020-03-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(2) | — | 11 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b), Art 6(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R2422/2022-3 | 2024-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R0055/2022-3 | 2022-10-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R2054/2021-3 | 2022-08-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b), Art 6(2) | — | 9 |
| R0630/2021-3 | 2022-06-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1357/2021-3 | 2022-06-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R2349/2019-3 | 2020-09-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b), Art 6(2) | — | 9 |