Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-09-30
R0145/2025-3
Contested design: 006785507-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the invalidity and appeal costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant.
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
Danielle Kempersvia PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Zeeweg 65A, 1753BB Sint Maartensvlotbrug, Netherlands
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Caroline Camerlynckvia PDF extraction
Belgium (BE)
Karperstraat 184, 9000 Gent, Belgium
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
Best Baby Cocoon baby sleeping bag
Ravelry website · Ravelry
Best Baby Cocoon baby sleeping bag
www.flickr.com · Flickr · disclosed 2012-07-26
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed, arguing that D1 and D2 were not valid disclosures and that differences in shape, knot, opening, and product views produced a different overall impression.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that the earlier cocoon designs were sufficiently disclosed online, designer freedom remained substantial, and the shared tubular form, reinforced opening, narrowed lower end, and knot dominated the comparison.
- ›The Board held that the 2019 filing date meant substantive validity was assessed under Regulation No 6/2002, while D2’s Flickr screenshot proved disclosure and allowed an objective comparison despite showing one perspective.
- ›The Board found that the contested design and D2 conveyed the same overall impression, so the contested design lacked individual character; it dismissed the appeal and ordered the holder to bear the costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberA. González Fernández
- Registrarp.o. M. Chaleva
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 |