DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009042765-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-03-27

000120919

Contested design: 009042765-0003

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's 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 009042765-0003. 2. 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 Poland

Represented by

Daniel Kurdubski

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDD1

car floor mats

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

Web disclosureD2

car floor mat design shown in a YouTube video

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

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over earlier designs D1 and D2, arguing the mat shape was largely dictated by the vehicle floor and safety constraints.
  • The holders replied that the designer retained freedom over the shape and appearance of car mats, and even mats for the same vehicle model can be designed differently.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1 and D2, but found the applicant had not proved seriously limited designer freedom or a saturated design corpus for car floor mats.
  • Comparing the overall impressions, the Division found the contested four-mat set differed clearly from both earlier designs, so the invalidity request failed and costs were awarded against the applicant.

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
000120868

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

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