DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003534833-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-11-14

R0519/2025-3

Contested design: 003534833-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must 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 del DUE impugnado 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

PADIMA

Holder · RCD owner

EXCLUSIVAS NIMBUS, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

C. Doctor Fleming, 23 Pol. Industrial El Bovalar, 46970 Alaquas, España

Represented by

BAYLOS

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosureDOC. 5

photograph of the 'bolsa Bio Task' garbage-bag packaging on Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/somostask/photos/1800237653579602 · Facebook / Somos Task · disclosed 2016-12-06

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 6(1)Article 7

Argument summary

  • The design holder appealed, arguing the informed user and the designer's freedom were misapplied and that differences in band width, colour, contrast and Kraft-paper texture created a different overall impression.
  • The invalidity applicant asked for dismissal, arguing that garbage-bag packaging still allows broad design freedom and that the shared roll-with-brown-band configuration dominated over the colour and proportion differences.
  • The Board confirmed disclosure through the 6 December 2016 Facebook post for the 'Bio Task' packaging, identified a relatively attentive informed user, and held that the designer still had broad freedom despite functional packaging constraints.
  • The Board found both designs created the same overall impression of a garbage-bag roll wrapped by a paper-like band used for closure and support, so the contested design lacked individual character and the appeal was dismissed.

Deciding panel

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R2274/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0093/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2273/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1575/2025-32026-04-29Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1395/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1394/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1318/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1396/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5