Invalidity · first instance · 2022-09-13
000117438
Contested design: 002563122-0002
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, Registered Community Design No. 002563122-0002 is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1. La domanda di dichiarazione di nullità è accolta. 2. Il disegno o modello comunitario registrato n. 002563122-0002 è dichiarato nullo. 3. Il titolare sopporta l’onere delle spese, fissate a 750 EUR.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Bragagnolo Argentivia PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Vegra, 7, 35013 Cittadella, Italia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Tecnologia Ospedaliera S.R.L.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Liguria, 61, 37060 Sona (VR) Italia
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
Amazon listing for 'MYSANITY Coppette paracapezzoli, Argento 999' showing silver nipple cups
ASIN B008JVVGEQ · Amazon.it · disclosed 2012-07-11
Amazon listing for 'Silverette the original paracapezzoli in argento 925'
ASIN B00D4MWKNQ · Amazon.it · disclosed 2013-03-21
Internet Archive extract of senocap.com showing SenoCap silver nipple cups and a related breastfeeding article
https://archive.org/web/ · Internet Archive / senocap.com · disclosed 2013-12-30
utility model registration for 'Coppetta Paracapezzolo'
No. 02019000000967 · Italian utility model registration · disclosed 2020-09-26
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character and argued that the design's features were dictated by technical function.
- ›It relied on Amazon and Internet Archive disclosures of similar silver nipple cups and on a utility model document to explain the product's technical features.
- ›The holder obtained an extension but filed no observations, so the application was undefended on the merits.
- ›The Division rejected the technical-function ground because not all essential features were solely functional, but found no different overall impression from the earlier Amazon-disclosed design.
- ›The application was upheld in full, the contested design was declared invalid, and costs were awarded against the holder.
Deciding panel
- MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI – ALOISI
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000131246 vs Life Vac LLC | 2026-04-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 8 |
| 000131089 vs Rongrong Gao | 2026-04-23 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 8 |
| 000128555 vs Juliane Hesse-Ilyas | 2026-02-24 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 8 |
| 000129035 vs OMNIOXY SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA | 2025-09-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 8 |
| 000127199 vs Xiamen Tuoke Trading Co., Ltd. | 2025-03-10 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 8 |
| 000125355 vs Shenzhen Sainuotong Technology Co., Ltd. | 2024-10-23 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 8 |
| 000125317 vs Life Vac LLC | 2024-08-16 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 8 |
| 000123775 vs Schunk Ingenieurkeramik GmbH | 2024-07-24 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 8 |