Invalidity · first instance · 2019-11-29
000106539
Contested design: 006134508-0006
Outcome
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 006134508-0006 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
Actions Microelectronics Co., Ltd.
China (CN)
Rm, 201, No. 9, Bldg,, Software Park, Kejizhong Second Road, New &Hi-Tech Zone, Nanshan, Shenzhen, People´s Republic of China
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Shenzhen Huasheng Electronic Technology Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
Rm.307B Rongxing Bldg, No. 168, Bulong Rd., Bantian St., Longgang Dist., Shenzhen City, People´s Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (8)
Screenshots of a product allegedly incorporating an identical design.
www.amazon.com · Amazon · disclosed 2015-06-08
Screenshots of a product allegedly incorporating an identical design.
www.amazon.co.uk · Amazon · disclosed 2015-06-08
Screenshot of the same product with a customer review date used to show prior distribution.
www.conrad.com · Conrad · disclosed 2017-05-08
Screenshots intended to show online marketing in Europe of a product incorporating the same design before the filing date.
Video showing the contested design.
www.youtube.com · YouTube · disclosed 2015-10-19
Video showing the contested design.
www.youtube.com · YouTube · disclosed 2017-05-14
Declaration of Conformity documents for commercialising a product incorporating the contested design in the European Union.
Declaration of Conformity · disclosed 2015-07-30
Earlier figurative EU trade mark 'EZCast'.
EUTM No 12 317 889 · EUIPO database · disclosed 2014-10-06
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity because the contested design allegedly used its earlier EZCast EUTM and also lacked novelty and individual character over earlier online disclosures.
- ›Holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
- ›The Division found the sign used on the design highly similar to the earlier EUTM for identical or similar goods, creating a likelihood of confusion.
- ›Invalidity was granted under Article 25(1)(e); the Division did not examine the novelty and individual-character grounds further.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000130850 vs Michael AMARA | 2026-04-23 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 8 |
| 000131224 vs Shenzhen Ruixin Fengshuo Electronic Co., Ltd | 2026-03-06 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 8 |
| 000130970 vs Liu yanqiong | 2026-02-26 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 8 |
| 000131064 vs Jinfeng Min | 2026-02-25 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 8 |
| 000130524 vs Liu yanqiong | 2026-02-17 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 8 |
| 000129861 vs Liu yanqiong | 2025-12-23 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 8 |
| 000130565 vs Yunzeng He | 2025-12-19 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 8 |
| 000130564 vs Yunzeng He | 2025-12-19 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 8 |