DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005535523-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-05-08

000107461

Contested design: 005535523-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected and the applicant must pay the holder's fixed costs of EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0055355230001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Denis Lau S Yungvia PDF extraction

United Kingdom (GB)

Unit 17578, Cardiff [Caerdydd GB-CRD] CF11 1NB, United Kingdom

Holder · RCD owner

Changchun Xiavia PDF extraction

China (CN)

No.66, Kuocang East Road, Xiaoqu Rengcai Zhongxin, Puzhou Street 5, Longwan District, Wenzhou City, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (2)

National designAnnex 1

pulse oximeter design

GB7020180060383340001 · United Kingdom design register · disclosed 2018-06-27

Web disclosureAnnex 3⚠ rejected as evidence

pulse oximeter offered on Amazon.co.uk by TOPCHANCES

ASIN B07F7XKGYJ · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2018-07-03

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity based on an earlier United Kingdom design right and on an Amazon.co.uk pulse oximeter listing, alleging conflict with a prior design right plus lack of novelty and individual character.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply to the invalidity application.
  • The Division held Article 25(1)(d) could not apply because the earlier UK design had been published before, not after, the contested RCD filing date.
  • It accepted that the Amazon listing reflected a disclosure event but found the reproduced design too poor to identify and compare under Article 7(1), so the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

24.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000118097

vs CILAG GMBH INTERNATIONAL

2023-05-15Art 25(1)(b)247
000117392

vs CILAG GMBH INTERNATIONAL

2023-05-15Art 25(1)(b)247
000118077

vs CILAG GMBH INTERNATIONAL

2023-03-22Art 25(1)(b)247
000117453

vs SHANGHAI TENGXIANG TRAVEL PRODUCTS CO.,LTD

2023-03-20Art 25(1)(b)247
000117372

vs Biovico Sp. z o.o.

2023-02-23Art 25(1)(b)247
000117460

vs TECNOLOGIA OSPEDALIERA S.R.L.

2022-09-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)247
000115342

vs Elsa Vermögens- und Beteiligungs AG

2022-06-15Art 25(1)(b)247
000108861

vs Sofiane Lozano IBANEZ

2021-07-22Art 25(1)(b)247