DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006611570-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-04-19

R0951/2021-3

Contested design: 006611570-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Desestimar el recurso. 2. Ordenar que la solicitante de nulidad sufrague las costas de la titular.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €900

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

CAYAGO TEC GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Benzstraße 10, D-32108 Bad Salzuflen, Alemania

Represented by

Jordi Güell Serra

Holder · RCD owner

iAQUA (Shenzhen) Limitedvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

No. 6 Building Huayisheng Industrial Park, No 4 industrial Zone, Fenghuang, Fuyong, Shenzhen, República Popular De China

Prior art cited (4)

Registered RCDD1

Sports apparatus / underwater motive device design

RCD No 2 077 206-0004 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2012-09-10

Registered RCDD2

Sports apparatus / underwater motive device design

RCD No 2 077 206-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2012-09-10

Registered RCDD3

Sports apparatus / underwater motive device design

RCD No 2 077 206-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2012-09-10

Registered RCDD4

Sports apparatus / underwater motive device design

RCD No 2 077 206-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2012-09-10

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 25(1)(d)(i)Article 4(1)Article 6Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the contested jet-powered watercraft design lacked individual character and conflicted with its earlier Community designs D1 to D4, which had already been enforced in other proceedings.
  • The design holder replied that the contested design had a sufficiently different sporty overall appearance and that the infringement history and other cited registrations or patents did not determine EUIPO validity.
  • The Board compared the earlier designs with the contested RCD and found clear differences in the bow, support surface, hull contours, keel and other visible features, so the contested design created a different overall impression on the informed user.
  • The appeal was dismissed, and the Board fixed representation costs at EUR 900 in total for the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurS. Rizzo
  • MemberH. Salmi
  • Registrarp.o. R. Vidal

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0116/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0115/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1669/2023-32024-11-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2453/2023-32024-10-30Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0952/2021-32024-09-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2140/2023-32024-08-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2585/2023-32024-08-06Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1745/2023-32024-06-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5