DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002692673-0005

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-10-31

R1771/2021-3

Contested design: 002692673-0005

CDRAppellant: holdermedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder is ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

A.L.B. S.P.A.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Località Monti di Deu, 07029 Tempio Pausania (SS), Italy

Holder · RCD owner

Harrogate Spring Water Ltdvia PDF extraction

United Kingdom (GB)

Harlow Moor Road, Harrogate, North Yorkshire HG2 0QB, United Kingdom

Represented by

Lewis Silkin Ireland

Prior art cited (2)

Trade markAttachment 6

Smeraldina faceted water bottle shape

Italian 3D trade mark No 1051146 · Italian trade mark publication / 9/03 Italia Imballaggio newsletter · disclosed 2003-09-01

PublicationAttachment 10 / Annex 1

Smeraldina water bottle prior design with faceted hourglass body

Italia Imballaggio 7-8/14 · Italia Imballaggio · disclosed 2014-07-01

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6Article 7Article 3(a)

Argument summary

  • The design holder argued that the informed user and the restricted design freedom in the bottled-water sector made the differences in the waist, label area and facet pattern enough to create a different overall impression.
  • The invalidity applicant maintained that its earlier Smeraldina bottle designs had long been disclosed and that the contested bottle repeated the same distinctive combination of an hourglass bottle and gemstone-like faceting.
  • The Board accepted the earlier disclosure and held that the common bottle shape and diamond patterning dominated the overall impression, while the different waist decoration and label area did not offset that similarity.
  • The appeal was dismissed, so the invalidity finding remained in place and the design holder had to bear the invalidity applicant's costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurC. Bartos
  • MemberE. Fink
  • Registrarp.o. N. Granado Carpenter

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
R0181/2025-32025-05-27Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0827/2024-32025-03-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1336/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0797/2024-32025-01-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1123/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1125/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1124/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1015/2024-32024-11-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5