DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007655378-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-08-25

R1622/2021-3

Contested design: 007655378-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs incurred by the design holder.

Show verbatim operative text(fr)

1. Le recours est rejeté ; 2. La demanderesse en nullité du modèle devra supporter les frais engagés par la titulaire du modèle.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Saverglassvia PDF extraction

France (FR)

3, Rue de la Gare, 60960 Feuquieres, France

Represented by

Novagraaf France

Holder · RCD owner

I.Distilling & covia PDF extraction

France (FR)

33 Chemin d'olivet, 16200 Réparsac, France

Represented by

Inlex IP Expertise

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDD1

bottle

RCD No 2 621 763-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-01-30

CatalogD2

Saverglass DISTIL’ER bottle as shown in catalog and website extracts

DISTIL’ER bottle · Saverglass catalog and website / Wayback Machine extracts · disclosed 2015-03-14

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6Article 25(1)(f)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the contested bottle lacked individual character over the earlier DISTIL'ER bottle and also invoked an earlier French copyright in that bottle design.
  • The design holder defended the registration, arguing that the differences in decoration, bottle details and overall appearance were sufficient and that the copyright case had not been properly established.
  • The Board agreed that the floral decoration, green base detail, recesses and other visible features gave the contested bottle a different overall impression, and it found the French copyright ground insufficiently substantiated.
  • The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the invalidity applicant.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • MemberM. Bra
  • MemberS. Rizzo
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R1669/2023-32024-11-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f)7
R1663/2020-32022-08-08Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f)7
R1142/2018-32019-09-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f)7
R1496/2015-32018-01-19Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f)6
R0115/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0116/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2453/2023-32024-10-30Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0952/2021-32024-09-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5