DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006581245-0010

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-08-12

000109865

Contested design: 006581245-0010

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 6581245-0010 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

Star Gres catalog / invoice · disclosed 2006-11-30

CatalogD2⚠ rejected as evidence

Star Gres "Savona" tile

Star Gres catalog / invoice · disclosed 2006-11-30

CatalogD3⚠ rejected as evidence

Star Gres "Villa Toscana" tile

Star Gres catalog

National designD4

tile

UK design No 1051901 · Designview / UKIPO publication · disclosed 1988-06-27

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicants argued the contested tile lacked novelty and individual character over earlier Star Gres Ferrara, Savona and Villa Toscana tiles, and over UK design No 1051901.
  • They relied on catalog pages, a 30 November 2006 invoice, an internal price list, web references and file-property screenshots to prove earlier disclosure.
  • The holder filed no observations, and the Division found the evidence for D1 to D3 insufficient because the catalog was undated and the other materials did not reliably show the designs disclosed.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of UK design No 1051901 but found the contested mosaic tile created a different overall impression, so the invalidity application was rejected.

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
000130245

vs G.B.S., s.r.o.

2026-01-20Art 25(1)(b)257
000130202

vs SC PAMABA SRL

2025-12-16Art 25(1)(b)257
000127959

vs Peng Zhang

2025-12-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000127997

vs Peng Zhang

2025-12-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000127897

vs Saunasell OÜ

2025-11-07Art 25(1)(b)257
000127935

vs Saunasell OÜ

2025-11-07Art 25(1)(b)257
000127898

vs Saunasell OÜ

2025-10-20Art 25(1)(b)257
000124782

vs D.ELLINAS FACTORY PRODUCTS LTD

2025-06-25Art 25(1)(b)257