DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002610592-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-01-29

R1747/2022-3

Contested design: 002610592-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees in the invalidity and appeal proceedings, fixed at EUR 1,250.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings, which are fixed at the amount of EUR 1 250.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €1,250

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Frito-Lay North America, Inc.via PDF extraction

United States (US)

7701 Legacy Drive, 75024-4099 Plano, United States

Represented by

Bomhard IP, S.L.

Holder · RCD owner

FAM,via PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

Neerveld, 2, 2550 Kontich, Belgium

Represented by

Gevers

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDD1

corrugated crisp / snack food shape

RCD No 001301733-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-11-04

Registered RCDD2

corrugated crisp / snack food shape

RCD No 001301733-0008 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-11-04

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the crisp design lacked individual character over two earlier registered Community designs, especially prior design D2.
  • The design holder argued that the crisps market was saturated, the designer's freedom was constrained, and the contested crisp differed through its flatness and Gothic-style corrugations.
  • The Board accepted disclosure of both earlier RCDs, rejected the saturation and technical-function arguments, and found that the contested crisp produced a very similar overall impression to D2.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity decision was confirmed.

Deciding panel

  • ChairS. Stürmann
  • RapporteurM. Bra
  • MemberH. Salmi
  • RegistrarR. Vidal Romero

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine 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
R1336/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 6(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1015/2024-32024-11-07Decision confirmedArt 6(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1719/2023-32024-06-21Decision confirmedArt 6(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R2422/2022-32024-01-30Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R0367/2022-32023-06-26Decision confirmedArt 6(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1103/2022-32023-02-15Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R2206/2021-32022-12-07Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R0133/2022-32022-12-07Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b)7