DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004368702-0004

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-05-18

R1446/2022-3

Contested design: 004368702-0004

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees 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

NICvia PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Civita Castellana SNC, 01030 Castel Sant'Elia (VT), Italy

Represented by

Nespega & Partners

Holder · RCD owner

CERAMICA CIELO S.p.A.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Falerina km 7.800, 01034 Fabrica di Roma (Viterbo), Italy

Prior art cited (2)

CatalogD1

BESPOKE suspended bathroom furniture / washstand from the 2016 collection

archiproducts.com and antoniolupi BESPOKE 2016 online catalogue

CatalogD2

OVVIO bathroom furniture shown in the NIC OVVIO 2016 catalogue

NIC OVVIO 2016 · NIC OVVIO 2016 catalogue

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that earlier BESPOKE and OVVIO bathroom-furniture designs disclosed in 2016 showed the same essential washstand appearance as the contested RCD.
  • The design holder contested identification and disclosure of the earlier designs, challenged the quality of the single-view images, and argued that differences in proportions, countertop and cabinet details preserved individual character.
  • The Board held that the relevant BESPOKE prior design had been sufficiently identified and disclosed through the web and catalogue evidence and that the washstands produced the same overall impression despite minor differences in panels, countertop dimensions and details.
  • The Board confirmed that the contested RCD lacked individual character, found the appeal unsuccessful, and ordered the design holder to bear the costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurE. Fink
  • MemberM. Bra
  • Registrarp.o. E. Apaolaza Alm

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R1448/2022-32023-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 60(1)7
R0055/2022-32022-10-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 60(1)7
R2486/2019-32021-01-21Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 60(1)7
R2427/2023-32024-07-31Decision partially annulledArt 25(1)(b), Art 60(1)6
R0181/2025-32025-05-27Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0827/2024-32025-03-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1336/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0797/2024-32025-01-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5