Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-04-14
R1815/2025-3
Contested design: 015035965-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder must bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
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
ARIKA s.r.o.via PDF extraction
SK
Nižná, Slovakia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
McLLOYD’S s.r.o.via PDF extraction
SK
Marcelová, Slovakia
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
snack foods
European Union design No 2 483 867-0003 · European Union Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-06-18
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed, arguing that visible shape and colour differences between the dinosaur-shaped snack designs created a different overall impression and that the Invalidity Division understated the technical constraints on extruded corn snacks.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that the first-instance comparison properly focused on the registered representations, that extrusion does not materially narrow design freedom, and that any tonal or contour differences were minor.
- ›The Board held that substantive validity is governed by the CDR, accepted prior design No 2 483 867-0003 as disclosed before the filing date, found at least average designer freedom, and concluded that the shared animal silhouette dominated the informed user’s overall impression.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the prior invalidity finding for lack of individual character stands, and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant’s costs in both instances.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurA. Pohlmann
- MemberC. Negro
- 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 |
| 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 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1396/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |