Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-06-14
R1787/2021-3
Contested design: 006751616-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Luminal Agency S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Cappuccini 16, 20122 Milano, Italy
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Changwei Liuvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
Room 1301, Building B, Olive Oasis Home, No. 5, Jingtian East Road, Futian Distirct, Shenzhen, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
MARINOS CLEANTHOUS
Prior art cited (2)
watch case / watches (part of -)
RCD No 5 306 388-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-06-21
watch casing shown from an angle revealing the crown
Facebook post from official D1 Milano page · Facebook · disclosed 2018-04-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested watch-case design lacked novelty and individual character over its earlier RCD and earlier marketed D1 Milano watch cases.
- ›The design holder filed no observations in reply before the Invalidity Division, but the appeal still turned on whether the earlier registered and social-media-disclosed designs produced the same overall impression.
- ›The Board held that, although the designs shared some features such as an octagonal bezel and a hexagonal crown, the contested design differed materially in the bezel shape, lug construction, case proportions and additional visible details, so it retained individual character and therefore novelty as well.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the rejection of the invalidity application was upheld.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurM. Bra
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2114/2019-3 | 2020-09-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0952/2021-3 | 2024-09-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2140/2023-3 | 2024-08-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2585/2023-3 | 2024-08-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |