DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004352300-0010

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

R0528/2023-3

Contested design: 004352300-0010

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 (5)

Web disclosureD1⚠ rejected as evidence

bag handle image not matching the pleaded prior design

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

dark-red bag handle image that was not sufficiently identified

Web disclosureD3

black bag handle section with green decoration and black handles

ecoactivasoluciones.blogspot.com/2016… · ecoactiva soluciones blog · disclosed 2016-03-14

Web disclosureD4

light bag handle section with green hand-like decoration and a small rear handle

ecoactivasoluciones.blogspot.com/2016… · ecoactiva soluciones blog · disclosed 2016-03-14

Web disclosureD5

blue bag handle section with PUBLICIDAD WALTER print and blue handles

facebook.com/Publicidadwalter/photos/a… · Facebook / Publicidad Walter · disclosed 2016-06-09

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant claimed that the contested bag-handle section lacked novelty and individual character over earlier online handle and upper-bag images.
  • The holder argued that some cited designs were mismatched or too unclear and that the contested handle section differed in colour, material, seams and handle geometry.
  • The Board accepted disclosure only for D3 to D5 and found the remaining cited handle images insufficiently proven or identified.
  • The accepted earlier handle designs created a different overall impression, so 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