DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007133111-0009

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-04-13

000128978

Contested design: 007133111-0009

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs.

Show verbatim operative text(it)

1. La domanda di dichiarazione di nullità del disegno o modello dell’UE registrato n. 007133111-0009 è respinta. 2. La richiedente sopporta l’onere delle spese del titolare.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Altoni Leather Italy s.r.l.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Altamura, Italia

Represented by

Vincenzo Vinciguerra

Holder · RCD owner

Franco Ferri S.r.l.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Altamura, Italia

Prior art cited (5)

Registered RCDD1

Romeo sofa design

RCD No 002044404-0008 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2012-02-14

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

Promotional article showing the Calia Romeo sofa model

https://www.salonemilano.it · salonemilano.it · disclosed 2025-02-05

Web disclosureD3

Facebook post showing the Raymond sofa model

https://www.facebook.com · Facebook

Web disclosureD4

Facebook post showing the Raymond sofa model

https://www.facebook.com · Facebook

Web disclosureD5

Facebook post showing the Raymond sofa model

https://www.facebook.com · Facebook

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on the earlier Romeo and Raymond sofa designs and arguing that the contested sofa reproduced their distinctive features.
  • The holder replied that the contested design remained new and individually distinctive because its visible metal frame, headrest construction, proportions, and overall structure differed materially from the cited designs.
  • The Division accepted D1 and D3-D5 as disclosed prior art but rejected D2 as evidence because its dates were after the contested design's 26 October 2019 filing date.
  • The Division found that the contested design created a different overall impression from D1 and D3-D5, especially due to the headrests, side frame, and footrest, so it had individual character and was not identical to the prior designs.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder's costs.

Deciding panel

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

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

06.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000128656

vs Washtower IP B.V.

2026-05-19Art 25(1)(b)067
000128557

vs Washtower IP B.V.

2026-05-19Art 25(1)(b)067
000129371

vs joboo GmbH

2026-05-05Art 25(1)(b)067
000131627

vs Shuifa XIE

2026-03-31Art 25(1)(b)067
000130974

vs Højer Møbler A/S

2026-03-10Art 25(1)(b)067
000128937

vs Liyou Industrial Co., Ltd

2026-02-24Art 25(1)(b)067
000128579

vs Washtower IP B.V.

2026-02-23Art 25(1)(b)067
000122758

vs SAGAN FM GABRIELA WĄSALA SPÓŁKA KOMANDYTOWA

2026-01-28Art 25(1)(b)067