DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002237495-0007

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-09-20

000120342

Contested design: 002237495-0007

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(it)

1. La domanda di dichiarazione di nullità del disegno o modello comunitario registrato n. 002237495-0007 è respinta. 2. Il richiedente sopporta l’onere delle spese del titolare, fissate a 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

DewertOkin GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Weststr. 1, 32278 Kirchlengern, Germania

Holder · RCD owner

Motion S.p.A.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Biondini, 27, 47121 Forlì (FC) Italia

Represented by

IP Consulting BO

Alberto Laghi

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureAllegato 1

Screenshots from furniplusdesign.com showing the movement device

furniplusdesign.com · furniplusdesign.com

Web disclosureAllegato 2

Three screenshots from the holder's Facebook profile showing armchairs and sofas

Facebook profile of the holder · Facebook

PublicationAllegato 3

Assembly instructions for a cover kit applicable to a movement device sold by the holder

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(2)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(b), arguing the registered design is a hidden component of a complex product and that all of its features are dictated solely by technical function.
  • The holder defended validity; the decision records that the applicant's evidence did not prove invisibility during normal use or that every essential feature was solely functional.
  • The Division held the movement device is a component of a complex product, but its articulated telescopic arms remain visible from side and front views, especially when the footrest is extended.
  • The Division also found some features may serve technical purposes, but the applicant failed to show that all essential features were exclusively dictated by technical function.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to reimburse the holder's representation costs fixed at EUR 400.

Deciding panel

  • MemberChiara BORACE
  • MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
  • MemberJessica N. LEWIS

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

08.05

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000130884

vs Yigen Yang

2026-04-02Art 25(1)(b)087
000130703

vs Biwei Lin

2026-03-23Art 25(1)(b)087
000129381

vs EQUIPMOTOR LOCOMOTION DIRECT

2026-02-23Art 25(1)(b)087
000130727

vs Qiang Qian

2026-01-27Art 25(1)(b)087
000130282

vs Xiaodong SHAO

2025-12-19Art 25(1)(b)087
000114141

vs M&T 1997,a.s.

2025-12-15Art 25(1)(b)087
000126676

vs GH Holding Bjerre ApS

2025-09-10Art 25(1)(b)087
000125985

vs Best on Bolt GmbH

2025-05-28Art 25(1)(b)087