Invalidity · first instance · 2020-06-23
000108761
Contested design: 004517175-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0045171750001 is rejected. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Qidong Jinshu Culture Communication Co. Ltd
China (CN)
No 95 Liutou Village, Lvsigang Town, Nantong City, Jiangsu Province 226241, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Xiangmei Weng
China (CN)
No 61, Nancao Village, Jiangyin Town, Fuqing City, Fujian Province, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (6)
muscle stimulator (design D1) offered on Amazon.fr
ASIN B073LSTMG7 · Amazon.fr · disclosed 2017-07-17
muscle stimulator (design D2) offered on Amazon.co.uk
ASIN B076HF8BCW · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2017-10-16
muscle stimulator (design D3) offered on Amazon.de
ASIN B07314DPMY · Amazon.de · disclosed 2017-07-18
muscle stimulator (design D1) offered on Amazon.de
ASIN B073LSTMG7 · Amazon.de · disclosed 2017-07-17
muscle stimulator (design D2) offered on Amazon.de
ASIN B076WZ389Q · Amazon.de · disclosed 2017-10-09
muscle stimulator (design D2) offered on Amazon.it
ASIN B074HY19LQ · Amazon.it · disclosed 2017-08-31
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, arguing that identical muscle stimulator designs had already been offered on Amazon before the RCD filing date.
- ›The holder filed no observations and did not rebut the applicant's evidence or argue that the disclosures fell within the grace period.
- ›The Division accepted the Amazon listings as prior disclosures under Article 7 CDR but found the earlier designs were not shown completely enough to prove identity with the contested RCD.
- ›Differences or potentially differing unseen parts prevented a finding of identical designs, so the novelty attack failed and the application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000123694 vs AllMates GmbH & Co. KG | 2025-01-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000132465 vs Dan Hu | 2026-06-30 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 5 |
| 000130844 vs Lego A/S | 2026-06-30 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 5 |
| 000072551 vs Lv Cheng Liang | 2026-06-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 5 |
| 000129510 vs ITALTRIKE S.R.L. | 2026-06-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 5 |
| 000129509 vs ITALTRIKE S.R.L. | 2026-06-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 5 |
| 000129511 vs ITALTRIKE S.R.L. | 2026-06-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 5 |
| 000129524 vs ITALTRIKE S.R.L. | 2026-06-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 5 |