DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008165971-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-03-27

000120867

Contested design: 008165971-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holders' costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 008165971-0001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Evaline Sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Zamknieta 10/1.6, 30-554 Krakow, Poland

Represented by

Clare Cornell

Holder · RCD owner

Sergiy Fatkulayev

Poland (PL)

Ząbkowska 18/58, 03-735 Warszawa Poland

Represented by

Daniel Kurdubski

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDD1

carpets for automobiles

RCD No 002555912-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-11-10

Registered RCDD2

mats for automobiles

RCD No 000418090-0006 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2005-12-13

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the contested car-mat design lacked novelty and individual character over earlier RCDs D1 and D2, and said the mat shape was functionally constrained by the vehicle footwell.
  • The holders disputed any severe constraint on design freedom, arguing car mats for the same vehicle can be shaped differently and that the cited prior designs created different overall impressions.
  • The Division accepted D1 and D2 as disclosed, but found the applicant had not proved that the mat shape was dictated by technical function or that the sector was so crowded as to narrow design freedom significantly.
  • Because the contested design differed in overall shape, proportions, materials, and composition from D1 and D2, it had individual character and could not be identical for novelty purposes; the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

06.11

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000127357

vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG

2025-02-13Art 25(1)(b)067
000127356

vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG

2025-02-12Art 25(1)(b)067
000127340

vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG

2025-02-06Art 25(1)(b)067
000121199

vs MANUTTI BVBA

2024-05-16Art 25(1)(b)067
000120918

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120869

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120920

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120919

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067