DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002575290-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-05-08

000010573

Contested design: 002575290-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 002575290-0001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

H&H Sports Protection S.r.l.

Italy (IT)

Via Provinciale Lucchese N. 599/E, 51034 Serravalle Pistoiese (PT), Italy

Represented by

Luigi Goglia

Holder · RCD owner

100% Speedlab, LLC

United States (US)

205 16th Street, San Diego 92101, United States of America

Represented by

Buzzi, Notaro & Antonielli d’Oulx

Duilio Cortassa

Prior art cited (7)

Registered RCD

goggles

RCD No 00759907-0002 · EUIPO database · disclosed 2007-07-31

Patent

sport goggles

US 2008/0189838 A1 · United States patent application publication · disclosed 2008-08-14

Registered RCD

goggles

RCD No 001597428-0001 · EUIPO database · disclosed 2009-09-08

Catalog

motocross goggles

Oakley Inc. motocross catalogue 2011 · Oakley Inc.

Registered RCD

goggles

RCD No 002278416-0002 · EUIPO database · disclosed 2013-07-25

Catalog

motocross goggles

Oakley Inc. motocross catalogue 2013 · Oakley Inc.

Catalog

goggles

Bollè catalogue, Revel Atomic · Bollè

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6(1)(b)Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over earlier RCDs, a US patent publication, and catalogue disclosures, and argued some goggle features were technically constrained.
  • The holder replied that its upper central prominence and nose profile created a different overall impression and that even modest differences mattered in a crowded goggles market.
  • The Division accepted the cited prior art as disclosed but found the compared designs were not identical and that the contested design's freer features produced a clearly different overall impression.
  • The invalidity grounds under Article 25(1)(b) CDR failed, so the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

16.06

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000108881

vs Rip N Roll Limited

2020-04-14Art 25(1)(b)167
000129117

vs QINGWEI LIU

2026-03-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)165
000130544

vs ShangHai Jheyewear Co.,Ltd

2026-03-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)165
000130342

vs AFFARGO LTD

2026-02-04REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)165
000128475

vs AFFARGO LTD

2025-07-24Art 25(1)(b)165
000125536

vs SHENZHEN AIXIANGPAI E-BUSSINESS CO., LTD

2025-02-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)165
000124085

vs Paweł Kośmider

2024-05-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)165
000124135

vs Paweł Kośmider

2024-05-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)165