DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002705236-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-07-15

000011239

Contested design: 002705236-0004

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0027052360004 is rejected. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Karla Colletto Swimwear Inc

United States (US)

319-D Mill St. NE, Vienna, Virginia 22180, United States of America

Represented by

BIRD & BIRD LLP

Holder · RCD owner

Lisa Marie Fernandez, LLC

United States (US)

255 Hudson Street, Apartment 4a, New York, New York 10013, United States of America

Represented by

Withers Worldwide

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureD1

VPOD: Vintage 1980s Bill Blass Ruffle Swimsuit

http://zuburbia.com/ · Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2012-11-13

Web disclosureD2

swimwear design shown on Mouille Swimwear website

http://www.mouille.co.uk/ · Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2015-05-02

Web disclosureD3

"In Bloom" swimwear design

http://shelterinteriordesign.blogpost.com · Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2014-08-09

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over three earlier publicly disclosed one-shoulder ruffle swimsuit designs, stressing broad designer freedom in women’s swimwear.
  • The holder challenged whether the Wayback Machine materials proved disclosure and argued the cited swimsuits differed materially, while modesty and fit requirements constrained design freedom.
  • The Division accepted Annexes 1 to 3 as reliable internet disclosures under Article 7(1) CDR because the archived webpages showed the designs online before the contested RCD filing date.
  • It found visible differences in seams, leg openings, ruffle proportions, and the absence of rear views in the earlier designs, leading to a different overall impression on the informed user.
  • The invalidity ground under Article 25(1)(b) CDR failed, so the application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberGaile SAKALAITÉ
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

02.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000106199

vs CALZATURIFICIO MERLYN SHOES SRLS

2020-02-18Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000104179

vs Alanui S.r.l.

2020-01-21Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000105199

vs Angels GmbH

2019-11-29Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000011208

vs VAPESOL-FÁBRICA DE COMPONENTES PARA CALÇADO, UNIPESSOAL, LDA

2019-08-14Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000011237

vs Lisa Marie Fernandez, LLC

2019-07-15Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000011236

vs Lisa Marie Fernandez, LLC

2019-07-15Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000011238

vs Lisa Marie Fernandez, LLC

2019-07-15Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000009181

vs Crocs, Inc.

2019-07-02Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028