DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005941960-0006

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-09-27

000106281

Contested design: 005941960-0006

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 005941960-0006 is rejected. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

ISSG Sports Innovations, Lda.

Portugal (PT)

Rua Quinta do Gato Bravo, 5-G, Zona Industrial Vale Flores, 2810-069 Feijó, Portugal

Holder · RCD owner

Sports Partner

Portugal (PT)

Estrada da Pernigem nº 26, São João das Lampas, 2705-726 Lisboa, Portugal

Prior art cited (3)

National design

multipurpose sports precinct / sporting facility (recinto deportivo)

Portuguese design No 5359 · Boletim da Propriedade Industrial · disclosed 2018-04-24

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

outdoor sports facilities allegedly embodying the earlier design

Facebook screenshots dated 05/06/2018 and 24/11/2018 · Facebook

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

outdoor sports facilities allegedly embodying the earlier design

Inov4Sports website screenshot · Inov4Sports website · disclosed 2019-04-20

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity based on Portuguese design No 5359, alleging conflict with a prior registered design right and lack of novelty and individual character.
  • Applicant also relied on bulletin extracts, Facebook posts and a website; the holder filed no observations in response.
  • The Division admitted the Portuguese bulletin evidence only to a limited extent, rejected the internet images as insufficient disclosure, and found Article 25(1)(d)(ii) inapplicable on the proven facts.
  • Comparing the registered designs, the Division found material differences in field layout, wall treatment, goal and basket framing, and lighting, so the contested RCD remained novel and had individual character.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER

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

25.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000106280

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)2510
000106300

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)2510
000106299

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)2510
000106301

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)2510
000112601

vs BILKA STEEL SRL

2021-04-08Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)259
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