Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-11-14
R0518/2025-3
Contested design: 003641547-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the 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. Ordenar a la titular a pagar las tasas y los gastos sufragados por la solicitante de nulidad en los procedimientos de nulidad y de recurso.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
EVERSIA, S.A.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Pol. Ind. El Tapiado C/José Fernández López, s/n 30500 Molina de Segura (Murcia) España
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
EXCLUSIVAS NIMBUS, S.L.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
C. Doctor Fleming, 23 Pol. Industrial El Bovalar 46970 Alaquas (Valencia) España
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
roll of garbage bags with a central brown band
https://www.plasticosbaltasar.net/productos.html · Internet Archive / plasticosbaltasar.net · disclosed 2015-09-16
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant sought cancellation for lack of individual character, relying in particular on an earlier Plasticos Baltasar garbage-bag roll disclosed online before the 2017 filing date.
- ›The holder argued the informed user would notice differences in the wider kraft-paper band, lighter grey roll, and sector constraints, producing a different overall impression.
- ›The Board applied Regulation 6/2002 substantively, confirmed disclosure of the Plasticos Baltasar design, and found the designer retained relatively broad freedom for garbage-bag packaging.
- ›It held that the color, texture, and band-width differences were insufficient against the shared overall configuration, so the contested design lacked individual character and the appeal failed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurA. González Fernández
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarK. Zajfert
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |