DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008438477-0001

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

R1995/2021-3

Contested design: 008438477-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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 (2)

Publicationmp24

2L beverage bottle with yellow label and brown upper strip

METRO advertisement on www.issuu.com · METRO / issuu.com · disclosed 2012-11-29

Publicationmp05

2L beverage bottle shown in a later METRO advertisement

METRO advertisement on www.issuu.com · METRO / issuu.com · disclosed 2013-03-07

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5Article 6Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The design holder challenged admissibility and disclosure, arguing that the earlier online evidence concerned trade marks or unreliable web material and that the contested 2L bottle had a different overall impression.
  • The invalidity applicant argued that the relevant earlier design was the 2L bottle shown in METRO advertisements predating filing and that its shape and label layout matched the contested bottle.
  • The Board held that Article 25(1)(b) CDR allowed the applicant to rely on disclosed prior designs regardless of ownership, accepted the online publications as proof of disclosure, and found the differences too minor to alter the overall impression.
  • The appeal was dismissed and fixed costs of EUR 1,250 were awarded against the design holder.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurE. Fink
  • MemberC. Bartos
  • 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