DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008764963-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-02-16

R1213/2023-3

Contested design: 008764963-0001

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

Lian Chenvia PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Calle de la Marga, s/n, Pol. Ind. Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 45224 Seseña Nuevo (Toledo), Spain

Holder · RCD owner

Guohua Hevia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Unit 5, Building 3, Rattle Garden, Ersanli Street, Yiwu City, Zhejiang Province, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Metida

Prior art cited (3)

Registered RCDD1

blister package

RCD No 4 522 787-0049 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-02-22

Registered RCDD2

blister package

RCD No 4 522 787-0036 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-02-22

Registered RCDD3

blister package

RCD No 4 522 787-0093 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-02-22

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the contested packaging lacked individual character over three earlier RCD blister-package designs and that the stationery-market context made small differences negligible.
  • The design holder filed no response in the invalidity or appeal stage.
  • The Board held that the appeal could only be assessed against D1 to D3 and that the added WIPO PROOF designs could not enlarge the subject matter of the case.
  • It found the shape, animal imagery, background and colour-layout differences sufficient to create a different overall impression, so the appeal was dismissed.

Deciding panel

  • ChairS. Stürmann
  • RapporteurE. Fink
  • MemberA. Pohlmann
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

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
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