DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002223834-0011

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-07-03

000010586

Contested design: 002223834-0011

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld; RCD No 0022238340011 is declared invalid; the holder must pay the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 0022238340011 is declared invalid. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Digi-tech Gesellschaft für den Vertrieb von elektronischen und digitalanzeigenden Instrumenten GmbH

Germany (DE)

Valterweg 27A, 65817 Eppstein, Germany

Represented by

Linklaters L.L.P.

Holder · RCD owner

Ice IP S.A.via PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

Place McAuliffe 34, 6600 Bastogne, Belgium

Represented by

Dr. Hillers

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCD

watch

RCD No 001966854-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin / Office design database · disclosed 2012-07-13

Web disclosure

same watch as earlier RCD No 001966854-0003

amazon.co.uk product page · amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2012-04-13

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6(1)(b)Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying in particular on earlier RCD No 001966854-0003 and an amazon.co.uk disclosure of the same watch.
  • The holder argued that differences in the dial ring, colours, glass, strap holes, buckle, second hand and branding created a different overall impression.
  • The Division found the earlier design had been disclosed before the filing date, rejected the novelty attack, but held that the shared one-piece watch form and minimalist face dominated the overall impression.
  • The application was upheld because the contested design lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b) CDR, and the holder was ordered to pay EUR 750 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

10.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000130161

vs ALBOR BOGDAN NIEDBAŁA

2026-01-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)108
000130127

vs ALBOR BOGDAN NIEDBAŁA

2026-01-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)108
000127515

vs Changzhou Fengxue Network Technology Co., Ltd.

2025-06-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)108
0001274582025-04-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)108
000123375

vs Gongjue Brand management (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.

2025-03-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)108
000123394

vs Gongjue Brand management (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.

2025-03-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)108
000123374

vs Gongjue Brand management (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.

2025-03-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)108
000123355

vs Gongjue Brand management (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.

2025-03-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)108