DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006581245-0013

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-11-10

R1965/2020-3

Contested design: 006581245-0013

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicants are ordered to bear the holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(fr)

1. rejette le recours; 2. condamne les demanderesses aux frais engagés par la titulaire aux fins des procédures de nullité et de recours.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Dado Ceramica S.r.l.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Sicilia 21, 40017 San Giovanni in Persiceto (Bologne), Italie

Represented by

Stefano Querzè

Holder · RCD owner

Italcer S.p.A.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Emilia Ovest, 53/A, 42048 Rubiera (RE), Italie

Represented by

Bugnion S.p.A.

Prior art cited (3)

Prior useD1

Star-Gres 'Ferrara' tile

Ferrara marrone 33,3 x 33,3 · Star-Gres catalogue extracts, invoices and reseller declaration

Prior useD2

Star-Gres 'Savona' tile

Savona beige 33,3 x 33,3 · Star-Gres catalogue extracts, invoices and reseller declaration

National designD4

A tile

UK design No 1 051 901 · DesignView / United Kingdom · disclosed 1988-06-27

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicants argued that the contested tile design lacked novelty and individual character in light of the Star-Gres Ferrara and Savona tiles and UK design D4.
  • The holder asked for dismissal of the appeal and maintained that the contested design created a different overall impression from the cited earlier designs.
  • The Board accepted disclosure of UK design D4 and, on the record as a whole, disclosure of the Star-Gres Ferrara marrone and Savona beige models, while rejecting the rest of the claimed disclosures.
  • Comparing the contested design with D4 and the disclosed Star-Gres models, the Board found clear differences in tessellation density, number of arc elements, colours and joint contrast, leading to a different overall impression.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicants were ordered to bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberM. Bra
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R2336/2022-32023-11-27Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R0746/2022-32023-01-30Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1876/2021-32022-09-21Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1699/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1695/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1694/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1696/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1693/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7