Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-12-05
R0828/2024-3
Contested design: 008442222-0004
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the holder of the contested EUD must pay the fees and costs incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
Desestimar el recurso. Condenar a la titular del DUE 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 (4)
2017 collection catalog showing dolls marketed by the holder with the same design
Annex IX · holder catalog
2018 collection catalog showing dolls marketed by the holder with the same design
Annex X · holder catalog
2019 collection catalog showing dolls marketed by the holder with the same design
Annex XII · holder catalog
Facebook post showing a doll incorporating the contested design
Annex XVII · Facebook profile of the holder · disclosed 2018-12-03
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The holder appealed, arguing the invalidity request was based on lack of novelty, not individual character, and that the movable eyes gave the doll a distinct overall impression for the informed user.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that lack of individual character had been pleaded from the outset, the Board should disregard the late AIJU evidence, and movable eyes did not alter the overall impression.
- ›The Board admitted both sides’ new evidence but found the AIJU study methodologically weak and of limited relevance because the informed user is a legal construct rather than the surveyed children.
- ›Comparing D1 with the contested design, the Board found extensive aesthetic coincidence, broad designer freedom, and differences in the movable eyes insufficient to create a different overall impression.
- ›The appeal was dismissed, the invalidity based on Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b) was confirmed, and the holder was ordered to pay the fees and costs of both instances.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0097/2025-3 | 2025-10-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1315/2023-3 | 2024-04-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0370/2022-3 | 2023-02-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R1524/2021-3 | 2022-05-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R1804/2024-3 | 2025-11-19 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R0422/2023-3 | 2024-03-19 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |