Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-09-26
R0522/2023-3
Contested design: 004352300-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Nichtigkeitsantragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Plásticos Industriales y Comerciales de Alfarrasi, S.L. Picdavia PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Crta. Nacional 340, S/N, 46893 Alfarrasi, Spanien
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Papier-Mettler KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Hochwaldstrasse 22, 54497 Morbach, Deutschland
Prior art cited (6)
Transparent plastic shopping bag with light-green PP & H shoe print and matching handles
publicidadmerchandising.blogspot.com/2016/04/publicidad-merchandising_21.html · Publicidad Merchandising blog · disclosed 2016-04-21
Transparent plastic shopping bag with “Manguitos / SHOES” fruit-themed print and orange-red handle
publicidadmerchandising.blogspot.com/2016/04/publicidad-merchandising_21.html · Publicidad Merchandising blog · disclosed 2016-04-21
Transparent plastic shopping bag with “ECOTUR” print, blue logo and red handle
Internet screenshot filed with the invalidity application
Light-coloured shopping bag with basket-and-produce print, yellow/green spots and dark-green handles
Internet screenshot filed with the invalidity application
Light-coloured shopping bag with basket-and-produce print and dark-green handle
Internet screenshot filed with the invalidity application
Light-green shopping bag with large leaf print and dark-blue handle
Internet screenshot filed with the invalidity application
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested shopping-bag design lacked novelty and individual character over multiple earlier plastic-bag designs shown in internet screenshots and declarations of prior marketing.
- ›The design holder answered that most alleged prior designs were not properly disclosed or identified and that, in any event, the contested bag differed in material, opacity, seams, handles and overall minimalist appearance.
- ›The Board agreed that only D1, D2, D3 and D6-D8 were both sufficiently identified and adequately disclosed, but found that each of those earlier bags created a different overall impression because of their transparent material, colourful prints, different handles and different seam structure.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the contested RCD retained novelty and individual character, and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurA. Pohlmann
- MemberE. Fink
- Registrarp.o. M. Chaleva
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |