DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008438477-0003

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-11-09

R1996/2021-3

Contested design: 008438477-0003

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

0.2L beverage bottle with yellow label and brown upper strip

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

Publicationmp05

Later METRO advertisement used to corroborate repeated publication of the bottle line

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 invalidity applicant did not own the earlier marks and that web printouts were insufficiently reliable evidence of prior disclosure.
  • The invalidity applicant replied that it relied on prior disclosed bottle designs under Article 25(1)(b) CDR and that the METRO/issuu publications and hyperlinks proved earlier disclosure of the 0.2L bottle.
  • The Board held the application admissible, accepted the online publications as sufficient proof of disclosure, and found that the contested bottle and the earlier bottle created the same overall impression despite minor differences.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the design holder was ordered to pay fixed costs of EUR 1,250.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurE. Fink
  • MemberC. Bartos
  • Registrarp.o. R. Vidal Romero

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