Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-11-21
R0560/2022-3
Contested design: 006369153-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurueckgewiesen. 2. Der GGM-Inhaber traegt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Fortune Bakery GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Heeslingen, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Michael Rohrdrommelvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Hessisch Oldendorf, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
Chocolate fortune cookie offered on Amazon under the title 'Happy Schoko Glueckskeks'
ASIN B079T6MNDB · Amazon.de · disclosed 2018-02-12
Chocolate fortune cookie offered on Amazon under the title 'Happy Kidz Schoko Glueckskeks'
Amazon.de listing · Amazon.de · disclosed 2019-03-07
Facebook disclosure of chocolate fortune cookies relied on by the invalidity applicant
facebook.com · Facebook
Blog article showing chocolate fortune cookies with messages inside
www.apotheke.blog/glueckskekse/ · apotheke.blog
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant relied on Amazon and other online disclosures of chocolate fortune cookies, arguing that the contested cookie design lacked novelty and individual character.
- ›The design holder challenged the reliability of the Amazon dates and argued that some online materials were its own disclosures or otherwise insufficient proof of pre-filing public availability.
- ›The Board accepted the Amazon disclosure D1 as publicly available before filing and found that the contested design and D1 were almost identical in their folded cookie form, colour and surface appearance.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the earlier invalidation for lack of individual character was maintained.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurA. Pohlmann
- MemberC. Bartos
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1562/2022-3 | 2023-05-31 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(2) | — | 5 |
| R1289/2021-3 | 2022-10-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(2) | — | 5 |
| R1290/2021-3 | 2022-10-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(2) | — | 5 |
| R0055/2022-3 | 2022-10-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(2) | — | 5 |
| R1288/2021-3 | 2022-06-02 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(2) | — | 5 |
| R0585/2019-3 | 2019-05-13 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(2) | — | 5 |
| R1197/2017-3 | 2018-07-19 | Decision annulled | Art 7(2) | — | 4 |
| R0677/2023-3 | 2024-03-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(2) | — | 3 |