Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-03-18
R0751/2019-3
Contested design: 004726511-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder is ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's costs in both the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Stephen Middlevia PDF extraction
United Kingdom (GB)
7 Lime Kiln Court, Gwernymynydd CH7 1JD, United Kingdom
Holder · RCD owner
Hui Zengvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
Room 402, Yuan Village New Village, Tianhe District, Guangzhou City 510000, People's Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
Image of 'NeoCube' magnetic ball product uploaded to Wikimedia Commons on 9 July 2009
https://commons.wikimedia.org/ (image of NeoCube, uploaded 9 July 2009) · Wikimedia Commons · disclosed 2009-07-09
YouTube video demonstrating magnetic ball cube product (BuckyBalls), published 20 May 2009
YouTube video 'BuckyBalls Demo#1', published 20 May 2009 · YouTube · disclosed 2009-05-20
Sale of 'Sets 216 pieces 5mm Balls' (magnetic ball cubes), proforma invoice and quotation from Chinese suppliers to invalidity applicant, 2017
Proforma invoice from Xinxin Magnetic Material Co., LTD., dated 9 October 2017 · Xinxin Magnetic Material Co., LTD. · disclosed 2017-10-09
eBay receipt confirming sale of magnetic ball cubes in 2017
eBay sales confirmation email, 2017 · eBay
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (respondent) relied on a Wikimedia Commons screenshot (9 July 2009), a YouTube video (20 May 2009), a proforma invoice and quotation from Chinese suppliers (2017), and an eBay receipt to prove that an identical design (magnetic balls forming a cube) had been publicly disclosed before the RCD's filing date of 26 February 2018.
- ›The design holder (appellant) challenged the reliability of the Wikimedia Commons date, arguing it could have been manipulated, and contended the invoice and quotation addressed to one EU person did not prove market availability in 2017; the holder did not submit observations before the Invalidity Division.
- ›The Board found that the Wikimedia Commons upload date (9 July 2009) was reliable based on metadata, that the YouTube video (20 May 2009) constituted clear prior disclosure, and that the commercial documents confirmed the design was traded before the filing date; the designs were identical in all features of appearance.
- ›The appeal was dismissed confirming invalidity; the holder was ordered to bear costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 ↗ |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0181/2025-3 | 2025-05-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0827/2024-3 | 2025-03-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0797/2024-3 | 2025-01-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1123/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1125/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1124/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1015/2024-3 | 2024-11-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |