Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-03-10
R0827/2024-3
Contested design: 008442222-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder is ordered to pay the fees and costs incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1 Desestimar el recurso. 2 Condenar a la titular del dibujo o modelo a pagar las tasas y los gastos sufragados por el solicitante de la nulidad en los procedimientos de nulidad y de recurso.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Luis Miguel Aroca Fuentesvia PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Llebeig, 13, 03430 Onil, Alicante, España
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Nines Artesanals d'Onil, S.L.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Calle Jaime I, 22, 03430 Onil, Alicante, España
Represented by
Anastasia Pérez Román
Prior art cited (1)
prior doll model from the holder's 2020 collection
Nines d’Onil, Collection 2020; Instagram publication of 2020-01-29 · Nines d’Onil Collection 2020 catalogue; Instagram account of a distributor · disclosed 2020-01-29
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The holder appealed, arguing the invalidity request was based on novelty only and that movable eyes, larger size, and thick eyelashes gave the contested doll a different overall impression.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that individual character had been pleaded from the start, the informed user was correctly defined, the author's freedom was broad, and the AIJU survey was inadmissible or unreliable.
- ›The Board admitted the new appeal-stage evidence from both sides but found the prior model D1 had been disclosed before the filing date through Instagram and the 2020 catalogue distributed at the toy fair.
- ›The Board held that the contested design and D1 shared nearly all relevant aesthetic features, that the eye differences were insufficient given the author's broad freedom, and therefore confirmed lack of individual character.
- ›The appeal was dismissed, the invalidity of the contested RCD was upheld, and the holder was ordered to bear the fees and costs of both instances.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1489/2022-3 | 2023-04-24 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R1488/2022-3 | 2023-04-24 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0055/2022-3 | 2022-10-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R2427/2023-3 | 2024-07-31 | Decision partially annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R2443/2020-3 | 2023-01-17 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R0092/2022-3 | 2022-10-25 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R0093/2022-3 | 2022-10-25 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R1085/2019-3 | 2020-10-22 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |