DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004352300-0004

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

R0526/2023-3

Contested design: 004352300-0004

CDRAppellant: applicant

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 (2)

Web disclosureD21

shopping bag with dark-green side panels, basket print and dark-green double handles

Twitter / Superpilopi · Twitter · disclosed 2016-04-11

Web disclosureD22

shopping bag with basket print, light body and dark-green double handles

noticiascarlosg.blogspot.com/2012/03/bolsas-de-membrillo.html · blog post · disclosed 2012-03-15

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant appealed, contending that the contested bag design lacked novelty and individual character in light of two earlier online bag disclosures.
  • The holder argued that the initial invalidity reasoning referred to a different design, that any late-added designs were inadmissible, and that the cited bags created a different impression.
  • The Board compared the contested design with D21 and D22 and found material, colour, handle attachment and stitching differences decisive.
  • Because D21 and D22 produced a different overall impression, the contested design remained novel and individual; 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