Invalidity · first instance · 2023-11-23
000120678
Contested design: 002345827-0030
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity of Registered Community Design No. 002345827-0030 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. 002345827-0030 è respinta. 2. La richiedente sopporta l’onere delle spese del titolare, fissate a 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Viridis S.r.l.s.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via dell'Arco 41-43, 16038 Santa Margherita Ligure Italia
Represented by
Gilberto Cavagna di Gualdana
Holder · RCD owner
Pomellato S.p.A.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Neera, 37, 0141 Milano, Italia
Represented by
Prior art cited (7)
ornamental objects
Italian design No. 0000069548 · UIBM
Facebook post showing a bracelet or necklace with a star-shaped pendant
Facebook / Dodo Jewels · disclosed 2012-06-27
Facebook post showing a bracelet or necklace with a star-shaped pendant
Facebook / Dodo Jewels · disclosed 2012-09-26
eBay listing for “Advertising Advertisement 2012 DODO by Pomellato Starfish”
https://ebay.com · eBay
social-media image of a pendant with a star
Facebook / Instagram / Dodo Jewels
social-media image of a pendant with a star
Facebook / Instagram / Dodo Jewels
social-media image of a pendant with a star
Facebook / Instagram / Dodo Jewels
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, relying on an earlier Italian design registration and social-media disclosures of star-shaped pendant designs.
- ›The holder argued the evidence did not prove valid disclosure dates and did not show all relevant features of the earlier designs, especially their full shape and thickness.
- ›The Division accepted D2, D3 and D5-D7 as disclosed on social media before 14/11/2013, treated D1 as disclosed for procedural economy, and rejected D4 for lack of a certain date.
- ›It found none of the earlier designs identical to the contested design because visible differences, including colour and unshown side thickness, were not irrelevant; the invalidity application was therefore rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
- MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000122480 vs Lilou Sp. z o.o. | 2025-06-03 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000122480 vs Lilou Sp. z o.o. | 2024-05-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000119878 vs Henan Nanhua Qianmu Biological Technology Co., Ltd. | 2023-04-11 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000117656 vs Fleurop AG | 2022-12-20 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000117858 vs Fleurop AG | 2022-12-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000117632 vs Yiwu Hongyu Trading Company | 2022-10-06 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000114705 vs Albert Ungrad | 2022-03-17 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000114121 vs YES BIŻUTERIA SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA | 2022-02-09 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |