DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003375898-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-01-09

000010736

Contested design: 003375898-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's fixed costs of EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 003375898-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Lung-Fei Chuang

Taiwan (TW)

No. 17, Lane 301, Nanyang Rd, Fongyuan Dist., Taichung City 42083, Taiwan, R.O.C.

Holder · RCD owner

Shenzhen Jiatai Electronic Business Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Room 219, Building 4, Jinzhong Lanzuan Fengjing Huayuan, Jinlong Second Road, Longgang Street, Longgang District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province 518100, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCD

fitness equipment

Community design No 002305979-0001 · EUIPO Community design register · disclosed 2013-09-10

Catalog

Wonder Core Smart fitness product marketed by Bodyorbit Co., Ltd

Taipei International Sporting Goods Show (TaiSPO) 2015 booklet · Taipei International Sporting Goods Show (TaiSPO) · disclosed 2015-03-18

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character and for conflict with its earlier Community design rights over fitness equipment.
  • The applicant relied on its earlier Community design registration and a TaiSPO 2015 booklet showing the Wonder Core Smart product; the holder filed no observations.
  • The Division found the TaiSPO booklet sufficiently proved prior public disclosure and held the contested design identical apart from omission of the product name.
  • The application was upheld because the contested RCD lacked novelty, so the Division did not examine the remaining invalidity grounds.

Deciding panel

  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

21.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131885

vs Zhenkai Cui

2026-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129622

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129681

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000126976

vs Dohány Kft.

2026-04-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131547

vs Brandworl Management Co., Limited

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131507

vs Shenzhen Chenyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-31REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130128

vs joboo GmbH

2026-02-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130086

vs CROSS BORDEP (HK) CO., LIMITED

2026-02-02REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218