DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002956060-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-03-22

000103466

Contested design: 002956060-0001

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

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 0029560600001 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

Capital Business Management

United States (US)

PO Box 27740, Las Vegas, Nevada 89126, United States of America

Represented by

ACCAPI S.R.L.

Holder · RCD owner

Shenzhen Jiatai Electronic Business Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

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

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureAnnex 1

screenshots and release information for the 'Split-Ender PRO' product video review

www.youtube.com · YouTube · disclosed 2016-01-19

Web disclosureAnnex 2

Facebook printouts showing the 'Split-Ender PRO' product

www.facebook.com · Facebook · disclosed 2015-10-06

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested design had already been disclosed as the Split-Ender PRO before 22 January 2016, so it lacked novelty and individual character.
  • Holder filed no observations and offered no facts or evidence to rebut disclosure or the claimed similarities.
  • The Division accepted the YouTube and Facebook materials as prior web disclosures under Article 7(1) and found novelty not proven because the differences were not immaterial.
  • The Division held the shared shape, transparent element, gripping inserts, and front application created the same overall impression, so the design lacked individual character and was invalidated.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberGaile SAKALAITE
  • MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

28.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000130164

vs Moritz Neugebauer

2026-05-22REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000129241

vs Yi Wing Global Limited

2026-05-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000132044

vs Xucan XU

2026-05-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000131244

vs Shenzhen Lumei E-commerce Co., Ltd.

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000130964

vs Changde Yameixun Network Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-02-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000130541

vs Medintim SL

2025-12-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000128396

vs Koninklijke Philips N.V.

2025-12-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000128157

vs Koninklijke Philips N.V.

2025-12-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288