DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000002100-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-10-15

000010654

Contested design: 000002100-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, the request to maintain it in amended form is rejected, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text(it)

La domanda di dichiarazione di nullità è accolta. Il disegno/modello comunitario registrato n. 0000021000001 è dichiarato nullo. La richiesta di mantenimento del DMC nel Registro in forma modificata è rigettata. La titolare sopporta l’onere delle spese sostenute dal richiedente, fissate a 750 EUR.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

4B Company S.r.l.

Italy (IT)

via Guido Rossa n. 1, 63833 Montegiorgio (Fermo), Italia

Represented by

Apta S.r.l.

Holder · RCD owner

Deenz Holding LTDvia PDF extraction

AE

505 Empire Heights-Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Prior art cited (1)

Trade markAllegato 2

word mark 'PIANEGONDA'

EUTM No 001417625 · EUIPO · disclosed 2000-11-29

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(e)Article 25(6)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(e) CDR, relying on the earlier EU word mark PIANEGONDA for identical jewellery goods and alleging confusion because the same sign appears on the design.
  • Holder argued the word element on the design was not fully legible and requested maintenance in amended form by removing the small lower-right sign, claiming that removal would not affect novelty or individual character.
  • The Division found the PIANEGONDA element clearly perceptible and not secondary, so deleting it would change the design's novelty and individual character; maintenance in amended form under Article 25(6) CDR was refused.
  • For the Italian-speaking public, the signs were identical or highly similar for identical goods, the earlier mark had normal distinctiveness, and confusion existed; the application was therefore upheld in full.

Deciding panel

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

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
itItalianoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

11.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000130246

vs Giuliana FERRAROTTI

2026-05-15REUD invalidated116
000131904

vs Lang Huang

2026-04-20REUD invalidated116
000130401

vs KROKIDO GROUP s.r.o.

2025-12-10REUD invalidated116
000126956

vs Anna Krystyniak

2025-10-15REUD invalidated116
000126975

vs Anna Krystyniak

2025-10-15REUD invalidated116
000126957

vs Anna Krystyniak

2025-10-15REUD invalidated116
000126958

vs Anna Krystyniak

2025-10-15REUD invalidated116
000127536

vs Shuxun Dai

2025-03-28REUD invalidated116