DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002480780-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-04-17

000010953

Contested design: 002480780-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested registered Community design is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant’s costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

Se estima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad. Se declara nulo el dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado nº 0024807800001. 3. Se condena a la titular a que sufrague las costas de la solicitante, que se fijan en 750 EUR.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Poltrona Frau S.p.A.

Italy (IT)

Via Luigi Busnelli 1, 20821 Meda, Italy

Represented by

Hogan Lovells

Holder · RCD owner

Ascender S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Crta. Sto. Domingo 69, 26280 Ezcaray (La Rioja), España

Prior art cited (2)

National design

armchair design

Italian design No 69133, subnumbers 69133-6.1 and 69133-6.5 · Italy

International design

armchair design

DM/032283, subnumbers DM/032283-5.1 and DM/032283-5.2 · WIPO international registration with effect in Benelux, Germany and France · disclosed 1995-04-08

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying mainly on earlier Italian and international Pitagora armchair designs and also invoking Article 25(1)(d).
  • The holder argued the cited Pitagora variants were not identical, many features were function-driven, similar armchairs existed on the market, and the contested design remained new and individual.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the WIPO international design DM/032283 before the filing date, found the contested design not identical to it, but held the differences too minor to change the overall impression.
  • The application was upheld because the contested design lacked individual character under Article 6; the Division did not need to assess the remaining prior art or Article 25(1)(d).

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA
  • MemberIngeborg MENDIETA

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esSpanishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

06.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000115001

vs Eleni Ntouma

2021-09-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)0610
000101699

vs ZHEJIANG LONG YARD INDUSTRY & TRADE CO.,LTD

2018-09-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)0610
000131404

vs Jiahe Lin

2026-05-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000128578

vs Washtower IP B.V.

2026-05-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000128655

vs Washtower IP B.V.

2026-05-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000128637

vs Washtower IP B.V.

2026-05-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000128735

vs OÜ REPSTON

2026-04-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000129372

vs Xuefang Cai

2026-03-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068