DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006504163-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-09-13

000117461

Contested design: 006504163-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld; Registered Community Design No 006504163-0001 is declared invalid; the holder bears the 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. 006504163-0001 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

Holder · RCD owner

Tecnologia Ospedaliera S.R.L.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Liguria, 61, 37060 Sona (VR) Italia

Represented by

Bugnion S.P.A.

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureAllegato 3

Amazon offer for 'MYSANITY Coppette paracapezzoli, Argento 999'

ASIN B008JVVGEQ · Amazon.it · disclosed 2012-07-11

Web disclosureAllegato 6

Amazon offer for 'Silverette the original paracapezzoli in argento 925 per l'efficace protezione del capezzolo durante l'allattamento'

ASIN B00D4MWKNQ · Amazon.it · disclosed 2013-03-21

Web disclosureAllegato 11

Internet Archive capture of the SenoCap website and article on healthy nipples during breastfeeding

http://www.senocap.com/ · Internet Archive · disclosed 2013-12-30

Utility modelAllegato 14

Utility model registration for 'Coppetta Paracapezzolo'

No. 02019000000967 · disclosed 2020-09-26

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested nipple-protector design lacked novelty and individual character and that its features were dictated by technical function, relying on earlier Amazon, web-archive, and utility-model material.
  • The holder obtained a two-month extension but filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found that not all essential features were solely dictated by technical function, so Article 8(1) did not invalidate the design on that ground.
  • The Division accepted the Silverette Amazon disclosure as prior art and held that the contested design created the same overall impression on the informed user, so it lacked individual character and was declared invalid.

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

24.04

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131246

vs Life Vac LLC

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000131089

vs Rongrong Gao

2026-04-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000128555

vs Juliane Hesse-Ilyas

2026-02-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000129035

vs OMNIOXY SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA

2025-09-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000127199

vs Xiamen Tuoke Trading Co., Ltd.

2025-03-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000125355

vs Shenzhen Sainuotong Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-10-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000125317

vs Life Vac LLC

2024-08-16REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000123775

vs Schunk Ingenieurkeramik GmbH

2024-07-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248