DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009042765-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-03-27

000120920

Contested design: 009042765-0004

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is dismissed, and the applicant must 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 009042765-0004. 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 shown in YouTube screenshots

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 7

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on D1 and D2, arguing the mat shape was constrained by vehicle geometry and safety requirements.
  • Holders disputed any severe constraint on designer freedom, relied on examples of differently shaped mats for the same vehicle models, and argued the contested design created a different overall impression.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1 and D2 but found the applicant had not proved that the shape was dictated by technical function or that designer freedom was seriously limited.
  • Comparing the contested design with D1 and D2, the Division found clear differences in shape, number of mats, cut-outs, and visible features, so the design retained individual character and novelty.

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
000120867

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

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

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

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