DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002650259-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-12-18

000011014

Contested design: 002650259-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(fr)

1. La demande en nullité à l'encontre du dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré nº 002650259-0001 est rejetée. 2. La demanderesse supporte les frais exposés par le titulaire, fixés à 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Ningbo Ningda Electrical Appliances Co.,Ltd

China (CN)

No.1 Ningda road, Fuhai Cixi, 315332 Ningbo, République Populaire de Chine

Represented by

Christophe Mamelli

Holder · RCD owner

David MIKOLACZYK

France (FR)

21 Allée de Montplaisir, 64100 Bayonne, France

Represented by

Plasseraud Avocat

Prior art cited (1)

Other

radiator model

TEST REPORT No HLX-14DE1093HCSP-R1 · Bureau Veritas de Shanghai, République Populaire de Chine · disclosed 2015-03-24

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(f)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(f), alleging the contested radiator copied its earlier unregistered radiator model protected by Chinese copyright.
  • The holder argued the application was inadmissible or unfounded because no relevant EU Member State copyright law was invoked and the applicant had not proved ownership of the earlier work.
  • The Division held that the applicant relied only on Chinese copyright law and failed to identify an EU Member State in which those rights would be asserted.
  • Because that defect was sufficient to dispose of the case, the Division rejected the invalidity application without examining the holder's other objections.

Deciding panel

  • MemberJessica Norma LEWIS
  • MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

23.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000011043

vs BIODOM 27 d.o.o., proizvodnja, trgovina in storitve

2018-12-20Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(f)238
000011013

vs David MIKOLACZYK

2018-12-18Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(f)238
000109461

vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd

2020-12-16Invalidity application rejected236
000109481

vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd

2020-12-16Invalidity application rejected236
000109521

vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd

2020-12-16Invalidity application rejected236
000109561

vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd

2020-12-16Invalidity application rejected236
000109402

vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd

2020-12-16Invalidity application rejected236
000109541

vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd

2020-12-16Invalidity application rejected236