DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006611570-0002

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-09-16

R0952/2021-3

Contested design: 006611570-0002

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the holder's costs.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

Desestimar el recurso. 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, 32108 Bad Salzuflen, Alemania

Represented by

Jordi Güell Serra

Holder · RCD owner

iAQUA (Shenzhen) Limitedvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

n.º 6 Building Huayisheng Industrial Park, n.º 4 industrial Zone, Fenghuang, Fuyong, Shenzhen, República Popular De China

Prior art cited (4)

Registered RCDD1

aparatos de deporte

RCD No 2 077 206-0004 · Boletín de Dibujos y Modelos Comunitarios · disclosed 2012-09-10

Registered RCDD2

aparatos de deporte

RCD No 2 077 206-0003 · Boletín de Dibujos y Modelos Comunitarios · disclosed 2012-09-10

Registered RCDD3

aparatos de deporte

RCD No 2 077 206-0002 · Boletín de Dibujos y Modelos Comunitarios · disclosed 2012-09-10

Registered RCDD4

aparatos de deporte

RCD No 2 077 206-0001 · Boletín de Dibujos y Modelos Comunitarios · disclosed 2012-09-10

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued the contested RCD lacked individual character over earlier RCDs D1 to D4 and also invoked Article 25(1)(d).
  • The holder maintained the design created a different overall impression and said the alleged infringement history and other proceedings were irrelevant.
  • The Board accepted disclosure of the earlier RCDs, found the informed user highly attentive, and considered the designer's freedom relatively broad despite technical constraints.
  • It held that the angular bow and stern, trapezoidal torso-support area, and lower keel gave the contested design a different overall impression.
  • The appeal was dismissed, the invalidity application remained rejected, and the invalidity applicant was ordered to pay EUR 900 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairS. Stürmann
  • RapporteurS. Rizzo
  • MemberH. Salmi
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianhuman 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
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
R0494/2023-32024-03-19Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5