DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002991315-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-05-21

000106882

Contested design: 002991315-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld; Registered Community design No 0029913150001 is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 0029913150001 is declared invalid. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

NIKE Innovate C.V.via PDF extraction

United States (US)

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

Holder · RCD owner

Sytyte Oy

Finland (FI)

Ruukintie 9, 10330 Pinjainen, Finland

Represented by

BERGGREN OY

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosure

DIADORA silver soccer training ball (Lido Soft Touch Ball)

YouTube; DIADORA 'Spring'15 Soccer Collection catalogue · disclosed 2013-09-06

Web disclosure

KIPSTA Sunny 500 green ball

YouTube · disclosed 2015-06-18

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character, arguing the protected triad ornament on a sports ball matched earlier DIADORA and KIPSTA football designs and that dotted seam lines should be disregarded.
  • Holder argued the design's unique seaming and four interlocking rounded triangular panels created a new overall impression and said designer freedom in football design was broad.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the DIADORA and KIPSTA balls from YouTube evidence, with the DIADORA catalogue corroborating disclosure, and found broad designer freedom for football ornamentation.
  • Comparing only the protected ornament, the Division found the contested triad arrangement almost identical to the prior design and held that the RCD lacked individual character, so the application was upheld.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI

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
000131885

vs Zhenkai Cui

2026-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129622

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129681

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000126976

vs Dohány Kft.

2026-04-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131547

vs Brandworl Management Co., Limited

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131507

vs Shenzhen Chenyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-31REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130128

vs joboo GmbH

2026-02-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130086

vs CROSS BORDEP (HK) CO., LIMITED

2026-02-02REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218