Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-08-06
R2585/2023-3
Contested design: 008535066-0001
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
Dismisses the appeal; 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 (1)
blister package
RCD No 6 343 638-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2019-04-10
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing the contested blister-package design lacked individual character over an earlier RCD and also raised lack of novelty.
- ›The design holder replied that novelty was a new inadmissible ground on appeal and that the registered designs differ in width, contours, eyelet, and colour arrangement.
- ›The Board limited the case to Article 25(1)(b) and Article 6 CDR, holding that novelty had not been pleaded below and could not be introduced for the first time on appeal.
- ›The Board found the informed user relatively attentive and concluded the visible differences in width, contours, eyelet, and decorative layout produce a different overall impression.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear the design holder's costs in both instances.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deGerman | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | human 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0952/2021-3 | 2024-09-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2140/2023-3 | 2024-08-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1745/2023-3 | 2024-06-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0494/2023-3 | 2024-03-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |