DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004660454-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-07-30

R0995/2023-3

Contested design: 004660454-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs incurred by the design holder 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

Froneri Bulgaria EOODvia PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

261, Lomsko Shosse Blvd., 1220 Sofia, Bulgaria

Represented by

Kamen Sashov Gogov

Holder · RCD owner

ДАЕСФ АДvia PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

ул."Поручик Неделчо Бончев" №8, 1528 София, Bulgaria

Represented by

Desislava Dancheva-Vasileva

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDD1

boxes with lids / packaging containers for food products

Community design registration No 3 465 541-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-11-24

Web disclosureD2

Familia family-size ice cream box shown in advertising video stills

https://www.youtub.com/watch?v=8r8a5iocjH0 · YouTube · disclosed 2010-05-27

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 6(1)Article 7(1)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing the contested ice-cream container lacked novelty and individual character over D1 and the earlier 'Familia' box designs, and that the Division's reasoning was inadequate.
  • The design holder replied that the contested RCD was a genuinely new design with different tub shape and proportions, while much of the alleged prior-design evidence was confidential, unclear, or irrelevant.
  • The Board accepted D1 and the YouTube-disclosed 'Familia' design as earlier disclosures, but upheld the rejection or limited relevance of other technical-drawing and website evidence.
  • Because the contested tub's conical shape, proportions, height, and depth create a different overall impression, and Article 8 was not established, the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded against the invalidity applicant.

Deciding panel

  • ChairS. Stürmann
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberH. Salmi
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esSpanishhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deDeutsch (de)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
R2274/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0093/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2273/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1575/2025-32026-04-29Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1395/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1394/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1318/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1396/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5