DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008320014-0005

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-11-06

000121566

Contested design: 008320014-0005

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD 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. 008320014-0005 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

Vimar S.p.A.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Viale Vicenza, 14, 36063 Marostica (Vicenza) Italia

Holder · RCD owner

4 Box s.r.l.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Brunelleschi, 16, 20146 Milano Italia

Prior art cited (1)

Catalog

Electrical socket shown in the bticino catalog as an earlier design/disclosure.

HC4140/16W · bticino catalog “Valore superiore su tutta la linea” (dated 2005)

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and at least lack of individual character based mainly on an earlier electrical-socket design disclosed in a 2005 bticino catalog.
  • The holder argued the outer border should be disregarded, the socket shape was not fully dictated by technical standards, the design remained new and individual, and the application should be rejected.
  • The Division admitted the holder’s late observations, accepted the bticino catalog as a valid prior disclosure under Article 7(1), and found the claimed technical-constraint evidence insufficient to exclude the socket shape from comparison.
  • Comparing the protected features, the Division found only minor positional and dimensional differences and held that the contested design produced the same overall impression on the informed user.
  • The application was upheld, the contested design was declared invalid for lack of individual character, and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberJessica N. LEWIS

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

13.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129363

vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd.

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000129383

vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd.

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000131764

vs Dongguan Penghui New Energy Technology Co., Ltd

2026-03-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000129921

vs SHENZHEN EASTKING TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD

2026-03-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000131186

vs Electronic Way Technology Co.,Ltd

2026-03-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000128636

vs Guangzhou Quemou Trading Co., Ltd.

2026-02-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000128598

vs Guangzhou Quemou Trading Co., Ltd.

2026-02-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000129221

vs Shenzhen Guangtuo Da Lighting Co., LTD

2026-01-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138