DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004667947-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-10-08

000105502

Contested design: 004667947-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 004667947-0002 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Sytyte Oy

Finland (FI)

Ruukintie 9, 0330 Pinjainen, Finland

Represented by

Berggren Oy

Holder · RCD owner

Nike Innovate C.V.via PDF extraction

United States (US)

One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, Oregon 97005-6453, United States of America

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

football design with interlocking rounded triangular shapes

RCD No 002991315-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-09-15

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over earlier RCD No 002991315-0001 for a football design.
  • The holder argued the prior art for football triad arrangements was crowded, so minor differences mattered, and submitted US registrations and undated football images.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the earlier RCD through its Community Designs Bulletin publication but found the holder had not proved a crowded design corpus.
  • The Division found the contested ball's ornamentation, visible panels and multiple views created a different overall impression, so the invalidity application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberKelly BENNETT

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

21.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000109222

vs DELTA-SPORT Handelskontor GmbH

2020-02-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)218
000109203

vs DELTA-SPORT Handelskontor GmbH

2020-02-11Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)218
000105761

vs Hui ZENG

2019-09-13Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)218
000104239

vs REPLIC HOCKEY SL

2019-08-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)218
000105219

vs CHROME CHERRY DESIGN STUDIO (PTY) LTD

2019-07-30Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)218
000011219

vs TCC Global N.V.

2018-12-03Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)218
000011052

vs Qizhi Chen

2018-08-28Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)218
000010565

vs Peter Lippert

2018-06-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)218