DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005321056-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-07-19

R0363/2021-3

Contested design: 005321056-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder’s fees and costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the fees and costs incurred by the design holder.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

M.P.S. Holding B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Spectrumsingel 161, 2718 JR Zoetermeer, The Netherlands

Represented by

PLOUM

Holder · RCD owner

Classik Internationalvia PDF extraction

IN

301, Bodke Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Dwarka Circle, Nashik Maharashtra 422 011, India

Represented by

CSY Europe

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDD1

medical foreleg sleeves / medical pet apparel

RCD No 2 201 186-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin / eSearch · disclosed 2013-03-22

Registered RCDD2

animal clothing

RCD No 675 947-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin / eSearch · disclosed 2007-03-20

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 6Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the contested pet-clothing design lacked novelty and individual character over its earlier medical pet apparel designs D1 and D2.
  • The design holder replied that the cited similarities were functional or generic and that the contested design differed through its neckline, sleeve construction, rear shape and zipper.
  • The Board held that the contested design produced a clearly different overall impression from both prior designs, notably because of its longer neckline and sleeves, tapering body, rear cut-out geometry and visible zip feature.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear the design holder’s costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurH. Salmi
  • MemberM. Bra
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

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
R0538/2025-32025-09-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0536/2025-32025-09-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2063/2021-32022-07-19Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0051/2017-32021-12-09Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1855/2020-32021-07-02Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1856/2020-32021-06-30Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2837/2019-32020-11-12Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1243/2017-32020-06-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5