Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-06-27
R0630/2021-3
Contested design: 002629741-0004
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant’s costs and fees in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. 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
Guangzhou Bytech Technologyvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
9011, Building 22-24, No. 251, Kehua Street, Wushan Road, Tianhe District, Guangdong Province, Guangzhou City, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
DANIEL SURBUvia PDF extraction
Romania (RO)
strada George Calinescu, nr. 52A, ap. 1, sector 1, 011 694 Bucuresti, Romania
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Compex Cefar adhesive electrode pad, 5x5 cm, pack of 4, blue
ASIN B003CP0D6Q · Amazon.it · disclosed 2011-09-21
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed, arguing the Amazon screenshot did not reliably prove disclosure because ASIN data and images could have been changed.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that the Amazon listing, ASIN, and customer reviews were sufficient evidence of pre-filing disclosure of the prior electrode design.
- ›The Board held the Amazon.it listing had adequate probative value under Article 7 and that speculative manipulation arguments did not undermine it.
- ›Comparing the adhesive electrode designs, the Board found only minor differences and confirmed that the contested RCD lacked individual character.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurM. Bra
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0303/2021-3 | 2022-07-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1357/2021-3 | 2022-06-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1338/2019-3 | 2020-03-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1015/2024-3 | 2024-11-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1719/2023-3 | 2024-06-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2422/2022-3 | 2024-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |