Invalidity · first instance · 2024-03-27
000120868
Contested design: 009042765-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is dismissed, and the applicant must pay the holders' costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Se desestima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del modelo comunitario registrado n.º 009042765-0001. 2. La solicitante carga con las costas de los titulares, cuantificadas en 400 EUR.
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, Polonia
Represented by
Clare Cornell
Holder · RCD owner
Sergiy Fatkulayev
Poland (PL)
Ząbkowska 18/58, 03-735 Warszawa, Polonia
Represented by
Daniel Kurdubski
Prior art cited (6)
car floor mat design with honeycomb pattern
RCD No 003146950-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-07-18
car floor mat design
RU design No 118709 · Russian Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2020-02-13
video showing honeycomb and diamond car mat design
https://www.youtube.com · YouTube · disclosed 2018-05-10
Instagram post showing multiple car mat designs with rhombus surface patterns
Instagram · disclosed 2019-05-27
Instagram post showing a car mat design
Instagram · disclosed 2017-02-04
Instagram post advertising a set of car mats
Instagram · disclosed 2019-11-26
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, arguing earlier designs D1-D6 disclosed the same honeycomb-pattern car mats and that mat shape should largely be disregarded.
- ›The holders disputed any severe design constraints, argued car mats can take different shapes even for the same vehicle model, and maintained the contested design created a different overall impression.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of D1-D3, D5 and D6, rejected D4 as insufficiently identified, and found the applicant had not proved a narrowly constrained design freedom or a saturated prior art corpus.
- ›Comparing the contested design with each accepted prior design, the Division found clear differences in shape, colour, cut-outs, buttons, and scope of representation, so the design had individual character and was not identical to any cited design.
Deciding panel
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
- MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
- MemberRebecca Santana Davies
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000127357 vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG | 2025-02-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000127356 vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG | 2025-02-12 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000127340 vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG | 2025-02-06 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000121199 vs MANUTTI BVBA | 2024-05-16 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000120918 vs Sergiy Fatkulayev | 2024-03-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000120920 vs Sergiy Fatkulayev | 2024-03-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000120867 vs Sergiy Fatkulayev | 2024-03-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000120919 vs Sergiy Fatkulayev | 2024-03-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |