Invalidity · first instance · 2018-07-26
000010431
Contested design: 002467522-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's fixed costs of EUR 350.
Show verbatim operative text
The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 002467522-0001 is declared invalid. The holder bears the applicant's costs, fixed at EUR 350.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €350
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Robert Bosch GmbH
Germany (DE)
Wernerstr. 1, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
Holder · RCD owner
Dongguan Greenway Battery Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Xingyuan Road, Xinyuan Commercial Street, TongSha Industry Park, DongCheng District, DongGuan 523000, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
accumulator
RCD 001712118-0012 · Community Design Bulletin · disclosed 2010-07-15
accumulator
RCD 001712118-0013 · Community Design Bulletin · disclosed 2010-07-15
German article showing the Bosch PowerPack 400 ebike battery
http://www.pedelec-biker.com · pedelec-biker.com · disclosed 2012-11-15
German article showing the Bosch PowerPack 400 ebike battery
http://www.pedelec-biker.com · pedelec-biker.com · disclosed 2012-11-19
German article showing the Gold Dragon ebike battery
http://www.pedelec-biker.com · pedelec-biker.com · disclosed 2014-01-22
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on earlier Bosch RCDs and internet disclosures of ebike batteries.
- ›The holder argued the application and German-language evidence were inadmissible or should be disregarded, and maintained the contested design created a different overall impression.
- ›The Division found the application admissible, accepted disclosure of the earlier Bosch RCDs, and considered the designer's freedom for ebike batteries reasonably high.
- ›It held that the contested design's uncommon parallelogram body reproduced the prior design's overall shape, so minor added details did not change the overall impression.
- ›The application was upheld, the contested RCD was declared invalid for lack of individual character, and the holder was ordered to bear costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberLudmila ČELISOVA
- MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129383 vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd. | 2026-03-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 8 |
| 000129363 vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd. | 2026-03-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 8 |
| 000131764 vs Dongguan Penghui New Energy Technology Co., Ltd | 2026-03-19 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 8 |
| 000129921 vs SHENZHEN EASTKING TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD | 2026-03-13 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 8 |
| 000131186 vs Electronic Way Technology Co.,Ltd | 2026-03-09 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 8 |
| 000128636 vs Guangzhou Quemou Trading Co., Ltd. | 2026-02-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 8 |
| 000128598 vs Guangzhou Quemou Trading Co., Ltd. | 2026-02-17 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 8 |
| 000129221 vs Shenzhen Guangtuo Da Lighting Co., LTD | 2026-01-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 8 |