DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004352300-0006

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

R0527/2023-3

Contested design: 004352300-0006

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 disclosureD2

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

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

Web disclosureD3

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 argued that the contested bag design lacked novelty and individual character over earlier bag disclosures used online before the filing date.
  • The holder disputed the legal sufficiency of the disclosure evidence and said the earlier bags differed in printed decoration, handle structure, material and seam layout.
  • The Board accepted disclosure for D2 and D3 and compared those earlier bags directly with the contested design from the perspective of an informed bag user.
  • The accepted earlier bags produced a different overall impression, so the appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicant bore the costs.

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