DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005941960-0005

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-09-27

000106301

Contested design: 005941960-0005

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 005941960-0005 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

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

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Facebook posts showing outdoor sports facilities

Facebook · disclosed 2018-06-05

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Inov4Sports website images of outdoor sports facilities

Inov4Sports website · disclosed 2019-04-20

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity based on Portuguese design No 5359 and alleged prior public disclosures, arguing lack of novelty, lack of individual character, and conflict with an earlier national design right.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found Article 25(1)(d)(ii) did not apply because registration and validity of the Portuguese design were not proven and the design had in any event been published before the contested RCD filing date.
  • For novelty and individual character, the bulletin publication of design No 5359 counted as disclosure, but the internet images were disregarded and the compared designs were materially different, producing different overall impressions.

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
000106281

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