DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003760123-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-01-21

000104179

Contested design: 003760123-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text(it)

1. La domanda di dichiarazione di nullità del disegno/modello comunitario registrato n. 0037601230001 è respinta. 2. La richiedente sopporta l’onere delle spese sostenute dalla titolare, fissate a 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Stuff & Things Ltd.via PDF extraction

Hong Kong (HK)

Unit 3005-7, 30/F Saxon Tower 7 Cheung Shun Street, Hong Kong

Represented by

Annika Romano

Holder · RCD owner

Alanui S.r.l.

Italy (IT)

Via D. Manin 13, 20121 Milano, Italia

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureAnnex 58

cardigan

www.vogue.it/collezioni-autunno-inverno-2014-15 · Vogue Italia

Web disclosureAnnex 60

cardigan

Instagram · disclosed 2016-10-04

Web disclosureAnnex 63

cardigan

Instagram · disclosed 2016-11-22

Web disclosureAnnex 67

cardigan

Instagram · disclosed 2016-12-02

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character, arguing the contested cardigan had been disclosed earlier on Instagram and that similar fringed, Native American-inspired cardigans were already on the market.
  • The holder argued the cited earlier models created different overall impressions, many annexes were undated or irrelevant, and the contested design had distinctive features in its cut, fringe border, colors, and decorative motifs.
  • The Division found most annexes insufficient to prove prior disclosure and accepted only four earlier disclosures, including one Vogue website extract and three Instagram screenshots dated before the filing date.
  • Comparing those earlier cardigans with the contested design, the Division held that differences in decoration, color combinations, and fringe placement produced a different overall impression on the informed user.
  • The invalidity application was therefore rejected and costs of EUR 400 were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
  • MemberJessica LEWIS

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
itItalianoriginalDownload 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
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
000011239

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
000011236

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