DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003058809-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-07-13

000110601

Contested design: 003058809-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must bear the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(it)

1. La domanda di dichiarazione di nullità è accolta. 2. Il disegno/modello comunitario registrato n. 003058809-0001 è dichiarato nullo. 3. Il titolare sopporta l’onere delle spese sostenute dal richiedente, fissate a 750 EUR.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Lynx s.r.l.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Viale Verdi, 56, 34074 Monfalcone (GO), Italia

Represented by

Propria s.r.l.

Holder · RCD owner

Luminal Agency s.r.l.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Cappuccini 16, 20122 Milano, Italia

Represented by

Bugnion S.p.A.

Prior art cited (1)

PublicationAllegato A.4

watch model "Laureato"

"Marche di Orologi in Italia", p. 9 · La Clessidra

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity of the contested watch design for lack of novelty and individual character over earlier watch disclosures, especially the Laureato model shown in a 1995 magazine article.
  • The holder argued the octagonal bezel was common in the watch sector, the author's freedom was narrow, the cited disclosures were insufficient, and the contested design remained new and individually distinctive.
  • The Division accepted the 1995 La Clessidra article as a valid prior disclosure under Article 7 and focused its assessment on that earlier Laureato watch.
  • The Division found the common bezel, dial, hands, crown, and bracelet features dominated the overall impression, while the identified differences were minor despite broad design freedom.
  • The application was upheld because the contested RCD lacked individual character under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(1).

Deciding panel

  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberMichele M BENEDETTI - ALOISI

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

10.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000130161

vs ALBOR BOGDAN NIEDBAŁA

2026-01-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)108
000130127

vs ALBOR BOGDAN NIEDBAŁA

2026-01-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)108
000127515

vs Changzhou Fengxue Network Technology Co., Ltd.

2025-06-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)108
0001274582025-04-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)108
000123375

vs Gongjue Brand management (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.

2025-03-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)108
000123394

vs Gongjue Brand management (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.

2025-03-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)108
000123374

vs Gongjue Brand management (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.

2025-03-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)108
000123355

vs Gongjue Brand management (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.

2025-03-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)108