Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-06-26
R2085/2022-3
Contested design: 008307060-0001
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 incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
J HUDSON & CO (WHISTLES) LIMITEDvia PDF extraction
United Kingdom (GB)
244 Barr Street, Hockley, Birmingham B19 3AH, United Kingdom
Holder · RCD owner
Anhui Qianhai Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Office 2505, Bldg 10, Bailemen, Mingpinguangchang, No. 558, Lianhua Road, Eco-Tech Development zone, Hefei, Anhui Province, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (6)
whistle depicted in black and white in the EUTM registration
EUTM No 8 636 482 · European Union Trade Marks Bulletin / eSearch plus · disclosed 2010-04-26
whistle depicted in red in the EUTM registration
EUTM No 8 636 482 · European Union Trade Marks Bulletin / eSearch plus · disclosed 2010-04-26
dog whistle offered on the Acme Whistles website
acmewhistles.co.uk · Wayback Machine capture of acmewhistles.co.uk · disclosed 2019-05-21
dog whistle shown on acme-pfeifen.de website materials
acme-pfeifen.de · Google search results and website printouts
dog whistle shown on deinefellnase.de website materials
deinefellnase.de · Google search results and website printouts
whistle shown on a single page allegedly from a 1971 J Hudson catalogue
alleged J Hudson & Co catalogue extract
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested design for a whistle with a connection assembly and lanyard lacked novelty and individual character over earlier whistle depictions and website disclosures.
- ›The design holder filed no observations, so the appeal proceeded undefended on the merits.
- ›The Board accepted disclosure of D1 and D2 from the published EUTM registration and of D3 from the Wayback Machine, but rejected D4 to D6 as inadequately proven or as different/new prior designs introduced on appeal.
- ›It held that the contested design's additional connection assembly and flat lanyard materially affected use and overall impression, so the design retained individual character and the appeal was dismissed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberC. Negro
- Registrarp.o. E. Apaolaza
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 |