DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015023935-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-09-18

R0054/2025-3

Contested design: 015023935-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder is ordered to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(it)

Respinge il ricorso. Ordina alla titolare del disegno o modello di sopportare le spese e le tasse sostenute dalla richiedente la nullità nei procedimenti di nullità e di ricorso.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

D.B. ART di Giuseppe Di Bisceglievia PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Vignati, n. 17, 26852 Casaletto Lodigiano (LO), Italia

Holder · RCD owner

Guerra Import Export di Guerra Marcovia PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Cadore, n. 5, 20831 Seregno (MB), Italia

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosureAll. 1-18

Rosabella floral decoration featuring a red rose inside a transparent glass sphere with red decorative elements and a white Rosabella label.

https://fioraioroma.eu; Rosabella social media posts; Amazon listing; AF - L'Arte del Fiorista (Dec. 2019) · Facebook, Instagram, fioraioroma.eu, Rosabella.it, Amazon, AF - L'Arte del Fiorista · disclosed 2017-12-11

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)Article 7(1)Article 41(1)

Argument summary

  • The holder appealed, arguing the priority claim should stand, Wayback Machine evidence was unreliable, and disclosure to specialized circles was not proven.
  • The invalidity applicant sought dismissal of the appeal and defended the first-instance finding that the Rosabella design had been publicly disclosed before the filing date.
  • The Board held the priority claim was out of time, admitted the late appeal evidence only insofar as intelligible, and found no concrete indications that the archived web evidence had been manipulated.
  • The Board also relied on corroborating social-media, Amazon, website, and magazine materials to confirm earlier disclosure, so novelty was lacking and the first-instance invalidity decision was upheld.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberS. Rizzo
  • RegistrarE. Wagner

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)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
R2322/2024-32025-05-21Decision confirmedArt 63(2), Art 5(2), Art 5(1)(b), Art 7(1)11
R0856/2022-32023-06-30Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 5(2), Art 5(1)(b)7
R0542/2022-32023-04-03Decision confirmedArt 5(1)(b), Art 7(1)7
R0370/2022-32023-02-20Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 63(2)7
R0050/2017-32021-12-09Decision annulledArt 7(1), Art 63(2)6
R0931/2018-32019-07-25Decision annulledArt 7(1), Art 63(2), Art 5(1)(b)6
R0947/2025-32026-04-07Decision confirmedArt 63(2)5
R0828/2024-32025-12-05Decision confirmedArt 63(2)5