Invalidity · first instance · 2018-05-23
000010131
Contested design: 001848672-0003
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0018486720003 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1. La domanda di dichiarazione di nullità del disegno/modello comunitario registrato n. 0018486720003 è respinta. 2. La richiedente sopporta l’onere delle spese sostenute dalla titolare, fissate in 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
BRADO S.p.a.
Italy (IT)
Via Cal di Mezzo n. 3, 31059 Bigolino di Valdobbiadene (TV), Italia
Represented by
Paolo Piovesana
Holder · RCD owner
DONATI S.p.a.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Paderno n. 19, 25050 Rodengo Saiano (BS)
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
earlier chair design with a four-spoke pyramidal base
RCD No 001077846-0021 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2009-02-09
earlier chair design with a four-spoke pyramidal base
Arper catalog 2010 · disclosed 2010-01-01
earlier chair design with a four-spoke pyramidal base
Arper catalog 2010 · disclosed 2010-01-01
earlier chair design with a four-spoke pyramidal base
Arper catalog 2010 · disclosed 2010-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and, in the alternative, lack of individual character over earlier design D1 and unregistered chair designs D2-D4 with similar four-spoke bases.
- ›The holder disputed the applicant's definition of the informed user, argued the sector was crowded, claimed the cited designs were not identical, and also challenged the application as initially inadmissible.
- ›The Division held the filing defect had been cured, accepted the earlier RCD registration and the 2010 Arper catalog as sufficient disclosure evidence, but found no identical prior design under Article 5.
- ›It also found the contested base created a different overall impression because of its squarer, more robust structure and the absence of separate feet, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
- MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
- MemberPierluigi M. VILLANI
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| itItalian | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000107779 vs ANJI WEIYU FURNITURE CO., LTD. | 2020-04-03 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000105800 vs Next Retail Limited | 2020-04-02 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000108302 vs INTER LINK SAS | 2020-01-20 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000101539 vs Soma Group d.o.o. | 2019-07-05 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000101480 vs Soma Group d.o.o. | 2019-07-05 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000101520 vs Soma Group d.o.o. | 2019-07-05 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000102339 vs Syzan Sp. z o.o. | 2019-04-25 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000102859 vs Syzan Sp. z o.o. | 2019-04-25 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |