Invalidity · first instance · 2024-10-02
000122956
Contested design: 002234781-0008
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity 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. 002234781-0008 è respinta. 2. La richiedente sopporta l’onere delle spese del titolare, fissate a 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Algi s.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Franco Vannetti Donnini 53/29-30, I-59100 Prato Italia
Represented by
Salvatore La Bella
Holder · RCD owner
Brooklin s.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via XI Febbraio, 27, 50053 Empoli (FI) Italia
Represented by
Prior art cited (7)
Wikipedia extract showing an Army Combat Shirt model
Wikipedia entry for "Army Combat Shirt" · Wikipedia · disclosed 2020-02-20
Amazon listing for a military-style shirt
ASIN B008HDUGGA · Amazon.ca · disclosed 2010-08-09
Amazon listing showing a military-style shirt in one colourway
ASIN B00DCJPEL6 · Amazon.com · disclosed 2011-09-23
Amazon listing showing a military-style shirt in a different colourway
ASIN B00DCJPEL6 · Amazon.com · disclosed 2011-09-23
Amazon listing for a military-style shirt
ASIN B006JHALUW · Amazon.com · disclosed 2011-12-07
Amazon listing for a military-style shirt
ASIN B0049A4VX4 · Amazon.ca · disclosed 2012-07-04
Amazon listing for a military-style shirt
ASIN B00NFNA8YM · Amazon.de · disclosed 2013-02-22
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, arguing the contested military shirt design had long been publicly available and was commonplace in military clothing.
- ›The holder argued the pleaded grounds were unclear or irrelevant and that the Wikipedia and Amazon materials did not adequately prove prior disclosure of identical earlier designs.
- ›The Division limited the case to Article 5 novelty, rejected later-added grounds and new prior designs as inadmissible, and accepted only D2 to D7 as timely disclosed prior designs.
- ›It found none of D2 to D7 identical to the contested design because visible differences in collar, sleeve pattern, pockets, seams, and views were not immaterial; the invalidity application was therefore rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberChiara BORACE
- MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
- MemberJessica Norma LEWIS
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129160 vs ROAD STAR GROUP | 2026-03-17 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000123314 vs XINMING SHOES MATERIAL CO.LTD | 2025-12-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000127175 vs GANNI A/S | 2025-12-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000126217 vs NAVIMA CALZADOS, S.L. | 2025-08-04 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000125895 vs Autumnpaper Limited | 2025-07-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000123218 vs CM LAUFSTEG MÜNCHEN INTERNATIONAL BRANDS GmbH | 2024-12-17 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000123217 vs CM LAUFSTEG MÜNCHEN INTERNATIONAL BRANDS GmbH | 2024-12-17 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000122154 vs Loro Piana S.p.A. | 2024-11-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |