DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009042765-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-03-27

000120869

Contested design: 009042765-0002

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity against RCD No 009042765-0002 is rejected, and the applicant is ordered to bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

Se desestima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del modelo comunitario registrado n.º 009042765-0002. Se condena al solicitante a que sufrague las costas del titular, fijadas 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 (2)

Registered RCDD1

car mats for automobiles

002555912-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-11-10

Web disclosureD2

screenshots from a YouTube video showing a car mat design

https://www.youtube.com · YouTube · disclosed 2020-03-23

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested car-mat design lacked novelty and individual character over D1 and D2, and that the vehicle floor well constrained the shape so the surface pattern should drive the comparison.
  • Holders replied that car mats for the same vehicle can still be designed differently, so the designer's freedom was not narrowly constrained and the cited prior art did not negate novelty or individual character.
  • The Division accepted D1 and D2 as disclosed but found the applicant had not proved that the contested shape was technically dictated or that the design corpus was so saturated that small differences would be discounted.
  • Comparing overall impressions, the Division found clear differences from both D1 and D2 and concluded the contested design remained new and had individual character, so the invalidity 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
000120920

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120867

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

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

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

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