Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-09-09
R2429/2023-3
Contested design: 009016561-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
IKOONA SP. Z O.O.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Marsz. Józefa Piłsudskiego 74/230, 50020 WROCŁAW, Poland
Represented by
Aleksandra Kacperska
Holder · RCD owner
Tomasz Gotszlikvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Glinki 27a, 63-200 Jarocin, Poland
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Rainbow multicoloured wafer ice cream cone marketed by Soforek sp. z o.o.
www.damon.com.pl; Facebook post dated 2019-02-02 · www.damon.com.pl and Facebook · disclosed 2019-02-02
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed, arguing limited design freedom from the production method, market saturation, and a different overall impression due to colours, stripe orientation, rim, and texture.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that the production method did not constrain the decorative pattern, saturation was unproven, and the contested RCD duplicated the prior design's five-colour striped decoration.
- ›The Board admitted the supplementary appeal evidence but found the designer retained a high degree of freedom apart from basic wafer-cornet constraints.
- ›The Board held the prior design was publicly disclosed before filing and that the shared five horizontal coloured segments and conical form outweighed minor differences.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity of the contested RCD for lack of individual character was confirmed, with costs imposed on the design holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberE. Fink
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2274/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2273/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1575/2025-3 | 2026-04-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1394/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1318/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1396/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |