Invalidity · first instance · 2022-02-09
000114121
Contested design: 007660436-0015
Outcome
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 007660436-0015 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
Apart Sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Stara Droga 3, 62-002 Suchy Las, Poland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Yes Biżuteria Spółka Akcyjnavia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Świerzawska 1, 60-321 Poznań, Poland
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
Henri Bendel black hexagonal jewellery design
refinery29.com article 'Your Jewelry Box Needs' / Henri Bendel Luxe Hex Semi · refinery29.com · disclosed 2014-04-01
ring with black central stone and concentric hexagonal metallic rings
Instagram profile 'meadowlarkjewellery' · Instagram · disclosed 2018-01-01
ring with shifted outer contour around the central stone
pinterest.pt / Point No Point Studio · Pinterest / Point No Point Studio website
ring with concentric hexagonal metallic rings and openings around the central stone
Instagram profile 'melanie_katsalidis' · Instagram · disclosed 2018-01-01
ring with concentric hexagonal metallic rings and openings around the central stone
tomfoolerylondon.co.uk / google.com search results · tomfoolerylondon.co.uk
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant claimed the contested jewellery design lacked novelty and individual character over D1 to D5 and a crowded prior art field.
- ›Holder contested disclosure and comparability of the internet evidence, argued the designs had material differences, and said the sector was not shown to be crowded.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of D1b from the 1 April 2014 Refinery29 article but found broad designer freedom and no proven market saturation.
- ›Comparing each prior design individually, the Division held the contested design created a different overall impression and was not identical to any invoked design.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected in full and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000122480 vs Lilou Sp. z o.o. | 2025-06-03 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000122480 vs Lilou Sp. z o.o. | 2024-05-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000120678 vs POMELLATO S.p.A. | 2023-11-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000119878 vs Henan Nanhua Qianmu Biological Technology Co., Ltd. | 2023-04-11 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000117656 vs Fleurop AG | 2022-12-20 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000117858 vs Fleurop AG | 2022-12-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000117632 vs Yiwu Hongyu Trading Company | 2022-10-06 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000114705 vs Albert Ungrad | 2022-03-17 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |