Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-07-31
R2019/2022-3
Contested design: 008037501-0001
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
Dismisses the appeal. 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
CRONO TARD SRLvia PDF extraction
Romania (RO)
Str. Lt. Col. Paul Ionescu, nr.6, Sector 1, Bucharest, Romania
Represented by
Magdalena Gabriela Bolintineanu
Holder · RCD owner
SELEX TRADINGvia PDF extraction
Romania (RO)
Str. Banul Antonache nr. 40-44, etaj 2, birou MRSF4, Sector 1, 011665 Mun Buchareșt, Romania
Represented by
Viorel Ros
Prior art cited (6)
URINEA bottle
Metro catalogue · Metro · disclosed 2013-05-30
URINEA bottle
Metro catalogue · Metro · disclosed 2014-01-02
URINEA bottle
Selgros catalogue · Selgros · disclosed 2015-10-02
URINEA bottle
YouTube screenshot · YouTube · disclosed 2017-12-04
URINEA bottle
Global Cash & Carry catalogue · Global Cash & Carry · disclosed 2019-11-13
contracts and technical drawings allegedly linked to URINEA bottles
third-party contracts
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued the bottle design lacked novelty because catalogues, a YouTube image and contracts showed the same URINEA bottle had been disclosed in trade before filing.
- ›The design holder replied that the earlier-rights ground was unsubstantiated and that the cited images and contracts did not clearly and objectively disclose an identical earlier design.
- ›The Board accepted disclosure of two prior bottle designs from the Metro catalogue and YouTube screenshot, but rejected other catalogues and contracts as insufficient to establish the relied-on design clearly enough.
- ›Because the accepted prior designs did not disclose every relevant feature of the contested RCD with certainty, the Board found the design new and dismissed the appeal.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurA. Pohlmann
- MemberM. Bra
- 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 |