Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-01-23
R0126/2019-3
Contested design: 002503680-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the holder is ordered to reimburse EUR 500 to the invalidity applicant.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1. Il ricorso è respinto; 2. La titolare rifonderà la somma totale di 500 EUR alla richiedente la nullità.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €500
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Viabizzuno S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Romagnoli, 10, 40010 Bentivoglio (BO), Italia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Davide Groppi S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Belizzi, 22-20A, 29122 Piacenza, Italia
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
lamp (garden/outdoor lamp with circular base, cylindrical stem and circular light body)
RCD No 1 294 664-0010 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-10-03
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder (Davide Groppi) appealed arguing that the invalidity of the prior design (later declared null) eliminated the legal basis for the invalidity application; that the contested RCD possesses novelty; that the base differences (simple flat surface vs. reinforced with mounting holes) were material to the overall impression, particularly for table lamps where the base is only accidentally hidden; and that the first-instance decision failed to explain the refusal to suspend proceedings.
- ›The invalidity applicant (Viabizzuno) did not file observations in reply.
- ›The Board held that the relevant prerequisite for Articles 5 and 6 CDR is disclosure of the prior design, not its validity; the prior design's subsequent invalidation does not affect the invalidity application; both designs produce the same overall impression of a lamp composed of a circular base, thin cylindrical stem, and circular shade, with differences in the base being largely hidden from view, technically conditioned, and insufficient to offset strong overall similarity.
- ›The appeal was dismissed, confirming invalidity of the contested RCD for lack of individual character.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarR. Vidal
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0181/2025-3 | 2025-05-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0827/2024-3 | 2025-03-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0797/2024-3 | 2025-01-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1123/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1125/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1124/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1015/2024-3 | 2024-11-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |