DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002846659-0007

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-03-18

000114903

Contested design: 002846659-0007

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(it)

1. La domanda di dichiarazione di nullità del disegno o modello comunitario registrato n 002846659-0007 è respinta. 2. Il richiedente sopporta l’onere delle spese del titolare, fissate a 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

NICvia PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Civita Castellana snc, 01030 Castel Sant'Elia (VT), Italia

Represented by

Nespega & Partners

Holder · RCD owner

Ceramica Cielo S.p.A.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Falerina km 7.800, 01034 Fabrica di Roma (Viterbo), Italia

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureD1

STAND washbasin model with circular basin and support structure

multiple website, catalog and social-media exhibits · disclosed 2015-04-04

Web disclosureD2

WIDE washbasin model with circular basin and support structure

multiple website, catalog and social-media exhibits · disclosed 2015-07-07

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on the earlier STAND and WIDE washbasin designs disclosed before 3 November 2015.
  • The holder argued the application was inadmissible or unsupported, challenged the reliability and language of several internet exhibits, and maintained the contested design differed clearly from the cited models.
  • The Division treated both prior models as disclosed for the best-case scenario but found the contested design created a different overall impression because of its rim, fully contained basin, rectangular legs, and lower circular shelf.
  • The invalidity grounds under Articles 25(1)(b), 4(1), 6 and 5 CDR failed, so the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

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

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

23.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000125335

vs Digikor Oy

2025-02-11Art 25(1)(b)237
000121854

vs Zhenhua Sun

2024-02-26Art 25(1)(b)237
000120318

vs BIODOM EUROPE S.R.L.

2023-10-10Art 25(1)(b)237
000120199

vs William Huang

2023-05-30Art 25(1)(b)237
000116628

vs DCX POLSKA Sp. z o.o.

2023-01-13Art 25(1)(b)237
000118242

vs TAIZHOU WEIYE REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT CO.,LTD

2022-11-03Art 25(1)(b)237
000114601

vs fire friends GmbH & Co. KG

2022-03-23Art 25(1)(b)237
000114781

vs CERAMICA CIELO S.p.A.

2022-03-02Art 25(1)(b)237