DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009106651-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-09-05

R0665/2023-3

Contested design: 009106651-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the design holder is ordered to bear the invalidity applicant’s costs and fees in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

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.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

62nordic sp/fvia PDF extraction

FO

Sudurrås 10, 100 Torshavn, Faroe Islands

Represented by

Otello Law Firm

Holder · RCD owner

Nixon Buivia PDF extraction

Denmark (DK)

Ebertsgade 3, 3th, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark

Represented by

KØNIG ADVOKATER I/S

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure

Bottle design shown in the article “Nykur Vodka Er Fyldt Med Rå Færøsk Mytologi”

http://mandesager.dk · mandesager.dk weblog · disclosed 2020-12-11

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the contested bottle design had been disclosed before filing through the 11 December 2020 online article and lacked novelty and individual character.
  • The design holder appealed after the Invalidity Division invalidated the RCD, arguing the prior disclosure was not sufficiently proven and that the contested design created a different overall impression.
  • The Board held that the internet printout proved prior disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR and that the similarities in the bottle shape, label shape and colour contrast outweighed the minor differences.
  • The appeal was dismissed; the contested RCD remained invalid for lack of individual character and the design holder was ordered to bear costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • MemberH. Salmi
  • MemberC. Negro
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

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