DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008263115-0001

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

R1689/2021-3

Contested design: 008263115-0001

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 (3)

International designD1

perfume bottle / female torso bottle

International Design No 1 of Registration No DM/024377 · international design publication · disclosed 1993-01-29

National designD2

bottle

Swedish design No 55 597 · Swedish design register · disclosed 1994-05-11

Trade mark

female bust perfume bottle sign

French 3D trade mark No 92 440 690 · French trade mark register · disclosed 1992-12-18

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant relied on earlier perfume-bottle designs and an earlier French three-dimensional trade mark, arguing that the contested female-bust bottle lacked individual character and created trade mark confusion.
  • The design holder defended the contested design's more detailed and realistic appearance and denied any confusing use of the earlier sign.
  • The Board found that the contested bottle still had individual character over the invoked designs and that the earlier trade mark and contested design were only similar to a low degree, which excluded 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
R1688/2021-32022-08-31Decision 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