Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-03-11
R1348/2023-3
Contested design: 007873187-0001
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled, the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution, and each party must bear its own appeal costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision. 2. Remits the case to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution. 3. Orders each party to bear its own costs and fees incurred in the appeal proceedings.
CostsEach party bears its own costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
ADINA-MAGDALENA ALBERTSvia PDF extraction
Romania (RO)
31 BANUL MANTA BOULEVARD, 1ST DISTRICT, BUCHAREST, Romania
Represented by
Viorel Ros
Holder · RCD owner
TECHTEX SRLvia PDF extraction
Romania (RO)
Sat Oșorhei str.1, nr. 312, 417360 com. Oșorhei, judetul Bihor, Romania
Represented by
Elena Grecu
Prior art cited (3)
article 'buy surgical masks online in Europe' showing a face-mask box
www.tiptrans.com · tiptrans.com · disclosed 2020-02-07
'3 Layer Facial Mask' video screenshot showing a face-mask box
https://www.youtube.com · YouTube · disclosed 2020-04-10
picture of face masks with box packaging
www.clothinglabels.cn · clothinglabels.cn · disclosed 2019-05-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant relied on numerous pre-filing mask-box disclosures, technical-function objections and earlier Romanian signs and trade marks such as ADINA ALBERTS and DR. ALBERTS to challenge the contested packaging design.
- ›The design holder argued that the cited boxes created a different overall impression, that the technical-function case was unproven, and that the earlier-sign claims failed for lack of proper proof and lack of similarity of goods and services.
- ›The Board agreed that the technical-function ground failed and rejected part of the earlier-sign case, but found that the Invalidity Division should have examined prior designs D3, D13 and D21 and should also complete the proof-of-use and likelihood-of-confusion analysis for the earlier mark EM1.
- ›The appeal succeeded, the contested decision was annulled, the case was remitted to the Invalidity Division, and each party was left to bear its own appeal costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0577/2025-3 | 2026-01-21 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1804/2024-3 | 2025-11-19 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1464/2024-3 | 2025-07-11 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(e) | — | 5 |
| R0922/2024-3 | 2025-07-08 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0823/2024-3 | 2025-06-18 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0370/2022-3 | 2025-03-13 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0010/2024-3 | 2024-10-02 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0422/2023-3 | 2024-03-19 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |