DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005138757-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-10-01

R2782/2019-3

Contested design: 005138757-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal upheld (reversal)

The contested decision is annulled, the contested Community design is declared invalid, and the holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs in both instances.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Annuls the contested decision; 2. Declares the Community design No 5 138 757-0001 invalid; 3. Orders the design holder to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Mediashop GmbHvia PDF extraction

Austria (AT)

Schneiderstraße 1, Top 1, 2620 Neunkirchen, Austria

Holder · RCD owner

Shenzhen Walikexun Information Technology Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

Duhui xuan Room 2804, Shijihui Plaza, No.3018, Shennan Middle Rd, Huaqiang St North, Futian District, Shenzhen 518 031, People's Republic of China

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDD1⚠ rejected as evidence

Ontel portable air conditioner design

RCD No 5 289 147-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-06-12

Prior useD2

portable air conditioner marketed by Ontel

Arctic Air · Ontel/Mediashop marketing emails, website and trade-show evidence · disclosed 2018-03-15

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the contested air-conditioner design was identical to Ontel's earlier Arctic Air product and lacked novelty under Article 5 CDR.
  • The design holder filed no defence either before the Invalidity Division or on appeal.
  • The Board found the combined email, website, Wayback Machine and trade-show evidence sufficient to prove disclosure of the prior design D2 before the filing date, and held the two designs identical in all relevant appearance features.
  • The appeal was upheld, the first-instance rejection was annulled, and the contested RCD was declared invalid with costs against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurH. Salmi
  • MemberE. Fink
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R2504/2022-32023-06-28Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R2030/2022-32023-06-07Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R2415/2018-32023-03-01Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R2416/2018-32023-03-01Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R2417/2018-32023-03-01Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R2443/2020-32023-01-17Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R0068/2022-32023-01-09Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R0093/2022-32022-10-25Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5