DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008764963-0006

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

R1217/2023-3

Contested design: 008764963-0006

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 (1)

Registered RCD

blister package

RCD No 6 343 638-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2019-04-10

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant contended that the single-view contested packaging lacked individual character over one earlier blister-package RCD using a similar red, blue and white scheme.
  • The design holder submitted no observations.
  • The Board confined the case to the prior design cited in the invalidity application and treated the marketed products and extra WIPO PROOF designs as irrelevant to the comparison.
  • It found the mirrored corners, larger eyelet, different red and blue sections and different sheet proportions sufficient to produce a distinct overall impression, so the appeal failed.

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