Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-10-03
R0487/2022-3
Contested design: 008053607-0002
Outcome
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
SERENA S.R.L.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Buzzi, 14, 20017 RHO, Italy
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
U-Earth Biotech Ltdvia PDF extraction
United Kingdom (GB)
38 Craven Street, London WC2N 5NG, United Kingdom
Represented by
Prior art cited (7)
alleged earlier disclosure of the holder's U-Mask face mask
U-Mask website statement 'Born in 2015, U-Mask is the first biotech mask' · design holder website
dust / protective / medical face mask
RCD No 7 879 945-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2020-06-25
Chinese utility model showing a face mask
CN 205233539 · Chinese utility model publication · disclosed 2016-05-18
Pitta face mask article linking to online purchase page
Pitta Mask article at thebeijinger.com · The Beijinger article / linked e-commerce page · disclosed 2019-03-04
Hotroad face mask shown on Amazon with user reviews
Hotroad Maschera per la Bocca on Amazon.it · Amazon.it user reviews / product page · disclosed 2020-04-09
Lavavel face mask shown in Etsy user reviews
Lavavel face mask on Etsy · Etsy user reviews · disclosed 2020-07-10
Adidas Face Mask / Face Cover
Dezeen article 'Adidas launches reusable face mask called Face Cover' · Dezeen article · disclosed 2020-05-25
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the protective-face-mask design lacked novelty and individual character because it had already been disclosed on the holder's website and by several earlier mask designs and publications.
- ›The design holder replied that some disclosure evidence was unreliable or untranslated and that the contested design differed materially, especially in its pockets, seams, eyelets, nose bump and overall proportions.
- ›The Board found that the earlier designs did not create the same overall impression on the informed user and that the features relied on by the invalidity applicant could not be disregarded as purely functional.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the rejection of the invalidity application was confirmed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurM. Bra
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0952/2021-3 | 2024-09-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2140/2023-3 | 2024-08-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2585/2023-3 | 2024-08-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1745/2023-3 | 2024-06-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |