Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-09-26
R0524/2023-3
Contested design: 004352300-0003
Outcome
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
Holder · RCD owner
Papier-Mettler KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Hochwaldstrasse 22, 54497 Morbach, Deutschland
Prior art cited (10)
plastic shopping bag shown in cited blog post
publicidadmerchandising.blogspot.com/2016/04/publicidad-merchandising_21.html · Publicidad Merchandising blog · disclosed 2016-04-21
plastic shopping bag shown in cited blog post
publicidadmerchandising.blogspot.com/2016/04/publicidad-merchandising_21.html · Publicidad Merchandising blog · disclosed 2016-04-21
plastic shopping bag shown in cited social-media print
social-media print · disclosed 2015-03-31
bag design from cited online print
bag design from cited online print
plastic shopping bag shown in online video still
rtve.es/agencias video still · website video still · disclosed 2009-09-01
shopping bag shown in website entry
website entry · disclosed 2011-01-11
shopping bag shown in website entry
website entry · disclosed 2012-08-06
grouped bag images not specifically identified in the application
grouped bag images lacking adequate dating or identification
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested shopping-bag design lacked novelty and individual character over numerous earlier online bag disclosures.
- ›The holder answered that many cited designs were not properly identified or proven online and that the contested bag differed in surface, colour, material, handles and seams.
- ›The Board accepted disclosure only for a subset of the cited bags and compared the contested design with the adequately disclosed earlier designs.
- ›The accepted prior designs created a different overall impression, so the contested design remained valid and the appeal was dismissed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurA. Pohlmann
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |