Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-05-21
R2322/2024-3
Contested design: 002234781-0008
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the fees and costs incurred by the 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 nei procedimenti di nullità e di ricorso.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Algi S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Franco Vannetti Donnini, 53/29-30, 59100 Prato, Italia
Represented by
Salvatore La Bella
Holder · RCD owner
Brooklin S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via XI Febbraio, 27, 50053 Empoli (FI), Italia
Represented by
Prior art cited (7)
Army Combat Shirt model shown on Wikipedia
Wikipedia · Wikipedia · disclosed 2020-02-20
Military-style shirt shown in an Amazon offer
ASIN B008HDUGGA · Amazon.ca · disclosed 2010-08-09
Military-style shirt shown in an Amazon offer (first colour variant)
ASIN B00DCJPEL6 · Amazon.com · disclosed 2011-09-23
Military-style shirt shown in an Amazon offer (second colour variant)
ASIN B00DCJPEL6 · Amazon.com · disclosed 2011-09-23
Military-style shirt shown in an Amazon offer
ASIN B006JHALUW · Amazon.com · disclosed 2011-12-07
Military-style shirt shown in an Amazon offer
ASIN B0049A4VX4 · Amazon.ca · disclosed 2012-07-04
Military-style shirt shown in an Amazon offer
ASIN B00NFNA8YM · Amazon.de · disclosed 2013-02-22
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing the contested military-shirt design lacked novelty over earlier Amazon and other online shirt images and that first instance had overlooked matching details.
- ›The holder replied that the appeal relied on inadmissible new prior designs, poor-quality and heterogeneous images, and no reliable proof of an identical earlier design disclosed before 9 May 2013.
- ›The Board held that only the novelty ground under Article 5 had been validly invoked and that the later Facebook and S.O.D. materials were inadmissible because they introduced new prior designs.
- ›The Board accepted disclosure of D2-D7 but found none identical to the contested design; D1 was not proven as prior disclosure, so the appeal failed and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberS. Rizzo
- RegistrarR. Vidal Romero
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0054/2025-3 | 2025-09-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 63(2), Art 5(2), Art 5(1)(b) | — | 11 |
| R2349/2019-3 | 2020-09-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 11 |
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 52(2), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R0856/2022-3 | 2023-06-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 6(1)(b), Art 5(2), Art 5(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R0598/2022-3 | 2023-06-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b), Art 5(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R0599/2022-3 | 2023-06-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b), Art 5(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R0542/2022-3 | 2023-04-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 5(1)(b), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R0370/2022-3 | 2023-02-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |