DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006581245-0016

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-08-12

000110022

Contested design: 006581245-0016

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 6581245-0016 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 tile model "Ferrara"

Star Gres catalog / invoice / web links

CatalogD2⚠ rejected as evidence

Star Gres tile model "Savona"

Star Gres catalog / invoice / web links

CatalogD3⚠ rejected as evidence

Star Gres tile model "Villa Toscana"

Star Gres catalog

National designD4

A tile

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

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicants argued the contested tile design lacked novelty and individual character in light of earlier Star Gres tile models, especially Ferrara, allegedly marketed since 2006.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division held the catalog, invoice, price list, web links, and file-property screenshot did not objectively prove prior disclosure of D1-D3 under Article 7(1).
  • Although UK design D4 was accepted as disclosed, the contested design created a different overall impression because of its many small square mosaic pieces and visible joints.
  • The invalidity grounds 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