DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004352300-0012

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

R0530/2023-3

Contested design: 004352300-0012

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 (6)

Web disclosureD1

upper bag section with transparent light body and green handles

ecoactivasoluciones.blogspot.com/2016… · online print

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

cited handle image not matching the pleaded design

Web disclosureD3

upper bag section with a dark-green handle and two horizontal seams

online print

Web disclosureD4

upper bag section with dark-blue external handle and green print

facebook.com/bolsasplasticas… · Facebook

Web disclosureD5

upper bag section with red handle and red print on a transparent light body

concdeleticia… · online print

Web disclosureD6⚠ rejected as evidence

cited design supported only by a URL link

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant said the contested upper-bag section lacked novelty and individual character over several earlier online handle and bag-section disclosures.
  • The holder argued that two of the cited designs were not properly proven and that the contested design differed in handle attachment, seam pattern, colour and material.
  • The Board accepted disclosure only for D1 and D3 to D5, then compared those earlier upper-bag sections individually with the contested design.
  • The accepted earlier designs produced 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

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