DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002259168-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-10-04

000010746

Contested design: 002259168-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity against registered Community design No 0022591680002 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. 0022591680002 è respinta. 2. La richiedente sopporta l’onere delle spese sostenute dalla titolare, fissate a 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Metalglas Bonomi S.r.l.

Italy (IT)

Via Montini n. 106/A, 25065 Lumezzane (Brescia), Italia

Holder · RCD owner

Logli Massimo S.p.A.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Chemnitz n. 49/51, 59100 Prato, Italia

Prior art cited (1)

CatalogD2⚠ rejected as evidence

Metalglas Bonomi 'Highlights' general catalogue showing channels V-2016 and V-2017

Metalglas Bonomi S.r.l.

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, arguing that only the visible features during normal use mattered and that earlier channels V-2016 or V-2017 anticipated the contested design.
  • The holder disputed the applicant's description of normal use, maintained that all design features were visible, and argued that the cited earlier models were simple U-shaped profiles that created a different overall impression.
  • The Division held that prior disclosure had not been proven because the applicant's own 07/11 'Highlights' catalogue lacked concrete evidence of distribution, timing, extent, or circulation in the specialized circles of the sector.
  • Without proof of disclosure under Article 7, the earlier design could not destroy novelty or individual character, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
  • MemberJose Antonio GARRIDO OTAOLA

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
itItalianoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

25.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000105879

vs Bernhard Hirsch

2020-02-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104699

vs DACHPOL Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością

2020-01-30Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104060

vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd.

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104079

vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd.

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104059

vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd.

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106281

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106301

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106280

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258