Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-09-04
R2405/2024-3
Contested design: 015010967-0001
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
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
Vandenberg Special Products B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Alexander Bellstraat 10, 3261 LX Oud-Beijerland, Netherlands
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Multiple Products B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Middenweg 18, 4631 ST Hoogerheide, Netherlands
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
packaging
REUD No 968 664-0001 · Office eSearch database · disclosed 2008-07-29
packaging
REUD No 863 519-0001 · Office eSearch database · disclosed 2008-02-20
JUMBO figurative mark extract
EUTM No 6 705 073 JUMBO (fig.) · Office trade marks database
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued the contested design remained essentially conical like D1 and D2, with only minor hexagonal fold lines and a similarly curved closure and wavy lips.
- ›The design holder replied that the hexagonal body, edged top, and straighter closure created a distinct overall impression, while the wavy lips were functional or insignificant.
- ›The Board limited the appeal to individual character over D1 and D2, applied the substantive CDR regime, and accepted that D1 and D2 had been disclosed before the contested design's filing date.
- ›The Board found the faceted hexagonal body and less curved top gave the contested design a different overall impression, so the invalidity application remained rejected and the appeal was dismissed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberC. Bartos
- RegistrarK. Zajfert
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 |