Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-04-14
R1816/2025-3
Contested design: 015035965-0002
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)
animal-shaped snack food / corn puff
European Union design No 2 483 867-0002 · European Union Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-06-18
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued that visible differences in colour, body shape, legs, tail, and surface texture gave the contested design a different overall impression from the prior design.
- ›The design holder also argued that extrusion constraints greatly limited designer freedom and that the informed user should be children and parents buying dinosaur-shaped snacks.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that extrusion still permits broad shape variation, colour fluctuations are insignificant for food products, and the Invalidity Division correctly assessed the informed user and overall impression.
- ›The Board held that the prior design was validly disclosed, designer freedom remained sufficient, the informed user was a generally informed purchaser of the registered snack products, and the shared animal silhouette dominated the overall impression.
- ›The Board found the contested design lacked individual character over the prior design, dismissed the appeal, and ordered the design holder to bear the costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurA. Pohlmann
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarK. Zajfert
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 |