DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008053607-0003

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-12-19

R0489/2022-3

Contested design: 008053607-0003

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

SERENA S.R.L.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Buzzi, 14, 20017 Rho, Italy

Represented by

Fumero S.R.L.

Holder · RCD owner

U-Earth Biotech Ltdvia PDF extraction

United Kingdom (GB)

38 Craven Street, London WC2N 5NG, United Kingdom

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

U-Mask Model Two Refill

https://it.u-maskstore.eu/ · design holder website

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(2)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the contested refill was an invisible component part of a mask and lacked novelty and individual character over a refill shown on the holder's website.
  • The design holder replied that the refill was a standalone consumable rather than a component part and that the website extract did not prove a reliable pre-filing disclosure date.
  • The Board held that the refill was a consumable, not a component part of a complex product, and that the single website extract did not establish disclosure before filing.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity application remained rejected.

Deciding panel

  • ChairS. Stürmann
  • RapporteurM. Bra
  • MemberC. Negro
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deGermanhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0878/2022-32023-02-16Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2)9
R0947/2025-32026-04-07Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2)7
R0204/2024-32025-06-04Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2)7
R2453/2023-32024-10-30Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R2289/2022-32023-12-13Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1696/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 4(2)7
R1694/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 4(2)7
R1699/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 4(2)7