Invalidity · first instance · 2024-06-12
000123936
Contested design: 015036114-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected and the applicant must bear the holder's costs, fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0150361140001 is rejected. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
HDM Kaucuk Zemin Kap. Spor Ekip. Pey. Geri Dön. ITH. IHR. SAN. TIC. LTD. STI.via PDF extraction
Türkiye (TR)
Modern Keresteciler Sıt. 5. Cad. No:14 Saray Kazan, Ankara, Turkey
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Beka Spor Zeminleri Sanayi Ve Dis Ticaret Limited Sirketivia PDF extraction
Türkiye (TR)
Orta Mahalle, Tevfik Ileri Caddesi, Ördekçioglu Blok 32 1, Pendik, Istanbul, Turkey
Represented by
Francisco José Rodríguez Alvarez
Prior art cited (8)
floor covering
Turkish design registration No 2020/08795 · Turkish Bulletin · disclosed 2020-12-24
floor covering designs shown in the catalogue 'For healthy lives high quality floors we are preparing'
Catalogue 'For healthy lives high quality floors we are preparing'
floor covering designs shown in the catalogue 'For healthy lives high quality floors we are preparing'
Catalogue 'For healthy lives high quality floors we are preparing'
floor covering design shown in alleged Instagram printouts
Instagram printout
floor covering design shown in alleged Instagram printouts
Instagram printout
floor covering design shown in alleged Instagram printouts
Instagram printout
floor covering design shown in alleged Instagram printouts
Instagram printout
floor covering design shown in alleged Instagram printouts
Instagram printout
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty over several earlier floor-covering designs and also alleged bad faith based on untranslated emails.
- ›Holder filed no observations and left the application undefended.
- ›The Division treated bad faith as inadmissible, accepted disclosure only for Turkish design D1, and rejected the catalogue and social-media materials as insufficient proof of disclosure.
- ›Comparing D1 with the contested design, the Division found visible differences in outline, paw decoration, and corner patterning, so novelty was not destroyed and the application failed.
Deciding panel
- MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
- MemberChiara BORACE
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000130245 vs G.B.S., s.r.o. | 2026-01-20 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000130202 vs SC PAMABA SRL | 2025-12-16 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000127997 vs Peng Zhang | 2025-12-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000127959 vs Peng Zhang | 2025-12-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000127935 vs Saunasell OÜ | 2025-11-07 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000127897 vs Saunasell OÜ | 2025-11-07 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000127898 vs Saunasell OÜ | 2025-10-20 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000124782 vs D.ELLINAS FACTORY PRODUCTS LTD | 2025-06-25 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |