Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-07-24
R2125/2023-3
Contested design: 000002100-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the costs and fees incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1. Respinge il ricorso. 2. Ordina alla richiedente la nullità di sopportare le spese e le tasse sostenute dalla titolare del disegno o modello nei procedimenti di nullità e di ricorso.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
4B COMPANY S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Guido Rossa 1, 63833 Montegiorgio (FM), Italia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Deenz Holding Ltd.via PDF extraction
AE
505 Empire Heights - Business Bay, Dubai, Emirati Arabi Uniti
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
US design registration for a bracelet clasp
48,950 · United States design registration · disclosed 1916-04-25
US design registration for pendants
397,312 · United States design registration · disclosed 1998-08-25
book extract showing an earring design
I gioielli del XX secolo. Un repertorio completo con oltre 1 500 illustrazioni, p. 107 · Italy
French ornamental design registration for shoes; boots
952 288-0006 · France · disclosed 1995-07-31
Polish figurative trademark depicting an elongated heart
R 136 506 · Gazzetta dei marchi polacchi · disclosed 2002-08-30
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the modified pendant design lacked novelty and individual character over D1-D5 and that its upper square hole was purely functional.
- ›The holder replied that removing the engraving did not alter the design's relevant features, the hole also had aesthetic significance, and the cited prior designs created different overall impressions.
- ›The Board accepted disclosure of D1-D5, found the informed user highly attentive and the designer's freedom broad except for attachment constraints, and rejected the claim that the hole was purely technical.
- ›Comparing each prior design individually, the Board found clear differences in shape, proportions, dimensionality, colour, and attachment features, so the contested RCD retained individual character and novelty.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the invalidity application remained rejected and the applicant bore the costs and fees of both instances.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberS. Rizzo
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1826/2025-3 | 2026-04-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0333/2025-3 | 2026-01-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2551/2023-3 | 2024-11-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1857/2022-3 | 2024-11-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1858/2022-3 | 2024-11-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0598/2022-3 | 2023-06-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0599/2022-3 | 2023-06-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |