DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008247332-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-08-31

R1688/2021-3

Contested design: 008247332-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the appellant to bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings incurred by the defendant.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Antonio Puig, S.A.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Plaza Europa, 46-48, 08902 L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain

Represented by

Plasseraud IP

Holder · RCD owner

Zou Chunliangvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

BLDG21 2T-502, Yunshan County, Congyun Road, Baiyun District, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Isabelle Bertaux

Prior art cited (4)

International designD1

perfume bottle / male torso bottle

International Design No 4 of Registration No DM/035072 · international design publication · disclosed 1996-02-29

National designD2

bottle

French design No 942417-001 · French design register · disclosed 1997-05-02

National designD3

bottle

French design No 942417-002 · French design register · disclosed 1997-05-02

Trade mark

male torso perfume bottle sign

French 3D trade mark No 95 587 225 · French trade mark register · disclosed 1995-10-13

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6(1)Article 25(1)(e)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant relied on three earlier perfume-bottle designs and an earlier French three-dimensional trade mark, arguing that the contested male-torso bottle lacked individual character and created trade mark confusion.
  • The design holder argued that the contested bottle had its own overall appearance and did not make use of the earlier sign in a way that would cause confusion.
  • The Board held that the contested perfume bottle retained individual character over the invoked earlier designs and that the earlier trade mark and contested bottle were only similar to a low degree, excluding any likelihood of confusion.
  • The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the invalidity applicant.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurC. Bartos
  • MemberE. Fink
  • 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
R1669/2023-32024-11-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)7
R1689/2021-32022-08-31Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)7
R1663/2020-32022-08-08Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)7
R1553/2019-32020-05-26Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)7
R1496/2015-32018-01-19Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)6
R0116/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0115/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2453/2023-32024-10-30Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5