Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-04-19
R0553/2022-3
Contested design: 008471882-0003
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder’s costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs and fees incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Antibiotice SAvia PDF extraction
Romania (RO)
1, Valea Lupului Street, 707410 Iasi, Romania
Represented by
Ionut Parpauta
Holder · RCD owner
Zdrovit Romania SRLvia PDF extraction
Romania (RO)
Str. Sevastopol, Nr. 13-17, Sector 1, Bucuresti, Romania
Represented by
Elena Grecu
Prior art cited (2)
packaging for the Fluxiv product shown in the 20 February 2021 warning letter image
Fluxiv packaging · Romanian Ministry of Health paperwork, invoices, and warning letter
Fluxiv figurative trade mark used as an alleged earlier package design
Romanian figurative trade mark No M 2021 01424 · Romanian Industrial Property Bulletin / registration certificate · disclosed 2021-03-02
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested lozenge-box design copied its Fluxiv packaging, which it said had been launched, sold and promoted before the filing date.
- ›The holder answered that the evidence either lacked images linking it to the alleged prior designs or had been filed too late, and that the contested RCD remained new and individually distinctive.
- ›The Board agreed that the documents did not self-evidently prove public disclosure of either alleged prior design before filing, and it refused to admit new trade-mark evidence first produced on appeal.
- ›Because Article 7 disclosure was not established, the appeal was dismissed without any successful novelty or individual-character attack.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurA. Pohlmann
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0952/2021-3 | 2024-09-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2140/2023-3 | 2024-08-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2585/2023-3 | 2024-08-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1745/2023-3 | 2024-06-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |