DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002568410-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-01-30

R2422/2022-3

Contested design: 002568410-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Desestimar el recurso. 2. Ordenar que la titular sufrague las costas de la solicitante de la nulidad.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €350

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Vossius & Partner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte mbBvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Siebertstrasse 4, 81675 Múnich, Alemania

Holder · RCD owner

Plasticos Faca, S.A.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Ctra. del Mig, 1-13, 08940 Cornella de Llobregat (BCN), España

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosureAnnexes VP 4 and VP 5

Filorga cosmetic cream jar

http://mywalletisdead.blogspot.com/2012/11/review-filorga-meso-mask.html; http://www.filorga.com/en/83/MESOMARK/details_produit.php · Wayback Machine / Filorga website and blog · disclosed 2011-12-04

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the jar design lacked novelty and individual character over an earlier Filorga cream jar disclosed repeatedly online before filing.
  • The design holder challenged the quality, source reliability and dating of the internet evidence and argued that the earlier jars created a different overall impression.
  • The Board accepted Annexes VP4 and VP5 as sufficient proof of internet disclosure and found that the cited earlier jar produced the same overall impression as the contested design.
  • The appeal was dismissed, the invalidity stood, and the total costs remained EUR 350.

Deciding panel

  • ChairS. Stürmann
  • RapporteurS. Rizzo
  • MemberH. Salmi
  • RegistrarR. Vidal Romero

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R1103/2022-32023-02-15Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)9
R0133/2022-32022-12-07Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)9
R2206/2021-32022-12-07Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)9
R0055/2022-32022-10-07Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)9
R2054/2021-32022-08-19Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)9
R0303/2021-32022-07-12Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)9
R1734/2019-32020-06-15Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)9
R1731/2019-32020-05-21Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)9