Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-02-16
R1214/2023-3
Contested design: 008764963-0002
Outcome
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
Represented by
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
Prior art cited (5)
blister package
RCD No 6 343 638-0010 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2019-04-10
blister package
RCD No 4 522 787-0052 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-02-22
blister package
RCD No 6 343 638-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2019-04-10
blister package
RCD No 4 522 787-0094 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-02-22
blister package
RCD No 4 522 787-0083 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-02-22
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant said the contested package copied five earlier blister-package RCDs and that the Invalidity Division wrongly focused on isolated differences instead of the overall impression.
- ›The design holder again filed no response.
- ›The Board excluded newly invoked WIPO PROOF designs from the case and assessed only D1 to D5 cited in the invalidity application.
- ›It found the opaque box, contours, grid and wave patterns, and line arrangements enough to give the contested design a different overall impression, so the appeal was dismissed.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1455/2022-3 | 2023-11-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0574/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0573/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0618/2021-3 | 2022-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0619/2021-3 | 2022-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1635/2019-3 | 2020-10-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2349/2019-3 | 2020-09-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1649/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |