DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008053607-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-01-28

000115205

Contested design: 008053607-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 008053607-0002 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Serena S.r.l.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Buzzi, 14, 20017 Rho, Italy

Represented by

Fumero S.r.l.

Holder · RCD owner

U-Earth Biotech Ltd

United Kingdom (GB)

38 Craven Street, London WC2N 5NG, United Kingdom

Prior art cited (7)

Web disclosureD1⚠ rejected as evidence

U-Mask Model Two (Product) Red

http://www.it.u-maskstore.eu · holder website

Registered RCDD2

Medical face masks, dust masks and protective face masks

Community design registration No 007879945-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2020-06-25

Utility modelD3

face mask shown in Chinese utility model

CN 205233539 · Chinese patent database · disclosed 2016-05-18

Web disclosureD4

Pitta Mask

https://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2019/03/04/best-pollution-masks-2019 · thebeijinger.com · disclosed 2019-03-04

Web disclosureD5

Hotroad Maschera per la Bocca

https://www.amazon.it · amazon.it · disclosed 2020-04-09

Web disclosureD6

Lavavel face mask

https://www.etsy.com · etsy.com · disclosed 2020-07-10

Web disclosureD7

Adidas Face Mask / Face Cover

https://www.dezeen.com · dezeen.com · disclosed 2020-05-25

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on the holder's website and six earlier mask disclosures and registrations.
  • The holder disputed several disclosures, challenged untranslated or unclear internet evidence, and argued the informed user would notice meaningful design differences despite functional constraints.
  • The Division rejected D1 as unproven disclosure but accepted D2 to D7 as prior art and found the contested mask's side pockets, seams, eyelets, and overall proportions created a different overall impression.
  • Because the contested design retained individual character and novelty over the cited prior art, the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI – ALOISI

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
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

29.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000115204

vs U-Earth Biotech Ltd

2022-01-28Art 25(1)(b)297
000115163

vs U-Earth Biotech Ltd

2022-01-28Art 25(1)(b)297
000131848

vs Solecom-Y OÜ

2026-05-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)295
000131866

vs Solecom-Y OÜ

2026-05-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)295
000116451

vs Banale S.r.l.

2022-10-04REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)295
000114081

vs ORIGINAL BUFF, S.A.

2021-09-14295
000129182

vs Guangzhou L-TEK Enterprise Co.,Ltd

2025-09-25Art 25(1)(b)4
000129183

vs Yi Duan

2025-09-16Art 25(1)(b)4