Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-10-31
R1994/2021-3
Contested design: 008438477-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees, and those costs are fixed at EUR 1,250.
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; 3. Fixes the costs to be paid by the design holder to the invalidity applicant for the invalidity and the appeal proceedings at EUR 1 250.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €1,250
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Domain Menada EOODvia PDF extraction
Bulgaria (BG)
Business Park Sofia 1, bl.4, fl. 2, Sofia, Bulgaria
Represented by
Vulchev Ivanov
Holder · RCD owner
Nuvo Konsept EOODvia PDF extraction
Bulgaria (BG)
бул. Ал.Дондуков № 57, вх. А, ет.1, ап. 6, 1000 СОФИЯ, Bulgaria
Represented by
Atanas Kostov
Prior art cited (1)
0.5L beverage bottle with yellow label and brown upper strip
METRO advertisement on www.issuu.com · METRO / issuu.com · disclosed 2012-11-29
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued that the invalidity application was inadmissible because the applicant did not own the earlier marks and that the online bottle evidence was unreliable and insufficient to prove disclosure.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that the case concerned Article 25(1)(b) CDR, not distinctive-sign rights, and that the METRO/issuu publications validly disclosed the earlier 0.5L bottle before filing.
- ›The Board held the application admissible, accepted the online publications as sufficient proof of disclosure, and agreed that the bottle shape and dominant yellow-and-brown label created the same overall impression.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the design holder was ordered to reimburse fixed costs of EUR 1,250.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberC. Bartos
- Registrarp.o. N. Granado Carpenter
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0181/2025-3 | 2025-05-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0827/2024-3 | 2025-03-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0797/2024-3 | 2025-01-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1125/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1123/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1124/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1015/2024-3 | 2024-11-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |