DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004352300-0015

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

R0533/2023-3

Contested design: 004352300-0015

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 (3)

Web disclosureD1

blue IKEA bag upper section with three blue handles and yellow IKEA print

https://thesmalls.com/article/the-blue-bag-film-honours-ikeas-frakta-like-the-icon-it-is · The Smalls · disclosed 2017-07-05

Web disclosureD2

light bag upper section with basket print and dark-green double handles

https://twitter.com/superpilopi/status/719595431219634180?lang=es · Twitter / Superpilopi · disclosed 2016-04-11

Web disclosureD3

yellow-green bag upper section with dark-green double handles

http://noticiascarlosg.blogspot.com/2012/03/bolsas-de-membrillo.html · Carlos Garrido blog · 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 upper bag section with double handles lacked novelty and individual character over three earlier online bag disclosures.
  • The holder said the cited prior designs differed in colour scheme, printed decoration, material, handle width and seam arrangement and therefore created a different impression.
  • The Board accepted disclosure for D1 to D3, identified the informed user and design freedom for shopping-bag handle sections, and compared each prior design individually.
  • The earlier designs 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