DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004352300-0002

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-09-26

R0523/2023-3

Contested design: 004352300-0002

CDRAppellant: applicantmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant shall 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

Garrigues IP, S.L.P

Holder · RCD owner

Papier-Mettler KGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Hochwaldstrasse 22, 54497 Morbach, Deutschland

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureD1

yellow transparent Renault shopping bag with grey handles

YouTube / Ounuo Machinery · YouTube · disclosed 2017-05-23

Web disclosureD2

yellow transparent Renault shopping bag with grey handles

Twitter / Alvaroman Merchandising · Twitter · disclosed 2017-03-30

Web disclosureD3⚠ rejected as evidence

shopping bag shown in an undated online print

Web disclosureD4

white shopping bag with OANG logo and grey-blue decorative lines

online print

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing that the contested shopping-bag design lacked novelty and individual character over earlier online bag disclosures.
  • The holder replied that several cited disclosures were not properly proven and that colour, material, handle placement and stitching created a different overall impression.
  • The Board accepted disclosure only for D1, D2 and D4, identified an informed user of shopping bags, and found broad design freedom apart from transport constraints.
  • The accepted earlier bags created a different overall impression, so the contested design remained novel and had individual character; the appeal was dismissed.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurA. Pohlmann
  • MemberE. Fink
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0116/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0115/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1669/2023-32024-11-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2453/2023-32024-10-30Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0952/2021-32024-09-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2140/2023-32024-08-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2585/2023-32024-08-06Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1745/2023-32024-06-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5