Invalidity · first instance · 2023-08-18
000118378
Contested design: 000002100-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay 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. 000002100-0001 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
4B Company s.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Guido Rossa, 1, 63833 Montegiorgio (Fermo), Italia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Deenz Holding Ltdvia PDF extraction
AE
505 Empire Heights - Business Bay, Dubai, Emirati Arabi Uniti
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
US design registration for a bracelet clasp
48,950 · United States design registration · disclosed 1916-04-25
US design registration for pendants
397,312 · United States design registration · disclosed 1998-08-25
book extract showing an earring design
I gioielli del XX secolo. Un repertorio complete con oltre 1500 illustrazioni, p. 107 · Italy
French ornamental design registration for shoes; boots
952288-0006 · France · disclosed 1995-07-31
Polish figurative trademark depicting an elongated heart
R136506 · Gazzetta dei marchi polacchi · disclosed 2002-08-30
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that, after deletion of the 'pianegonda' engraving, the contested pendant was merely a flat elongated heart with a functional hole and lacked novelty and individual character over D1 to D5.
- ›The holder replied that deleting the engraving did not alter the design's relevant features, the hole was not purely technical, and the contested design differed from all cited earlier rights.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of D1 to D5 before 1 April 2003 and held that designer freedom for pendants was broad; the hole's shape and placement contributed to appearance and could not be disregarded.
- ›Comparing each citation individually, the Division found differences in shape, curvature, dimensionality, colour or material, and attachment details, so the contested design remained new and had individual character; the application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
- MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
- MemberJessica N. LEWIS
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129981 vs BLOOM OBJECTS ApS | 2025-11-12 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000123774 vs Gusta Garden GmbH | 2024-11-06 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000124459 vs Gusta Garden GmbH | 2024-10-04 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000121618 vs Gusta Garden GmbH | 2024-04-04 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000130246 vs Giuliana FERRAROTTI | 2026-05-15 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 5 |
| 000131904 vs Lang Huang | 2026-04-20 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 5 |
| 000126975 vs Anna Krystyniak | 2025-10-15 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 5 |
| 000126957 vs Anna Krystyniak | 2025-10-15 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 5 |