Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-10-03
R0490/2022-3
Contested design: 008053607-0001
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 this protective-face-mask design lacked novelty and individual character because it had allegedly been disclosed years earlier and because several earlier masks created the same overall impression.
- ›The design holder answered that the website evidence was unreliable and that the contested mask differed through its tabs, seams, eyelet shape, nose line and inner second layer.
- ›The Board found that those visible differences were material and that the prior designs invoked did not deprive the contested RCD of novelty or individual character.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity application remained rejected.
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 |