DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006581245-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-08-12

000109821

Contested design: 006581245-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicants 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 6581245-0001 è respinta. 2. I richiedenti sopportano l’onere delle spese sostenute dal titolare, fissate a 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Dado Ceramica s.r.l.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Sicilia, 21, San Giovanni in Prisceto (BO) Italia

Represented by

Stefano Querzè

Holder · RCD owner

Italcer S.p.A.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Emilia Ovest, 53/A, 42048 Rubiera (RE) Italia

Represented by

Bugnion S.p.A.

Prior art cited (4)

CatalogD1⚠ rejected as evidence

Star-Gres "Ferrara" tile shown in applicant catalog and alleged earlier sales/web disclosure.

Star-Gres catalog / invoice / alleged web links

CatalogD2⚠ rejected as evidence

Star-Gres "Savona" tile cited as earlier tile design.

Star-Gres catalog / invoice / alleged web links

CatalogD3⚠ rejected as evidence

Star-Gres "Villa Toscana" tile cited from the same catalog.

Star-Gres catalog

National designD4

tile

United Kingdom design No 1051901 · DesignView / United Kingdom · disclosed 1988-06-27

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicants sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on earlier Star-Gres tile designs D1 to D3 and UK design D4.
  • The holder filed no observations in response.
  • The Division found the evidence for D1 to D3 insufficient to prove prior disclosure, but accepted publication of UK design D4 through the DesignView extract.
  • Comparing D4 with the contested tile, the Division held that the mosaic square tesserae and grout lines created a different overall impression on the informed user.
  • The invalidity grounds under Article 25(1)(b) failed, so the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicants.

Deciding panel

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

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

25.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000128596

vs Griptel AB

2025-07-17Art 25(1)(b)257
000124436

vs Ziel Home Furnishing Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-11-19Art 25(1)(b)257
000121100

vs TABB Interior Systems B.V.

2024-01-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000121138

vs TABB Interior Systems B.V.

2024-01-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000121099

vs TABB Interior Systems B.V.

2024-01-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000120379

vs Ergosafe Aktiebolag

2023-10-26Art 25(1)(b)257
000120958

vs Yimei Zhu

2023-07-27Art 25(1)(b)257
000119859

vs BoZarc

2023-06-02Art 25(1)(b)257