Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-06-27
R1357/2021-3
Contested design: 002629741-0003
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)
Dittmann adhesive electrode pad, 4x4 cm
ASIN B002N2Z03A · Amazon.de · disclosed 2009-08-28
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed, disputing that the Amazon.de screenshot and related materials proved public disclosure of the prior electrode design.
- ›The invalidity applicant responded that the ASIN, first-availability date, and customer reviews established disclosure before the filing date.
- ›The Board accepted the Amazon evidence as sufficiently probative and rejected the holder’s speculation that the listing content might have been altered.
- ›Because the electrode designs created the same overall impression on the informed user, the Board upheld invalidity for lack of 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 |
| R0630/2021-3 | 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 |