DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006079547-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-10-01

000110123

Contested design: 006079547-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid in full, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0060795470001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Resafe SpAvia PDF extraction

CL

Calle Lo Gamboa 251, bodega 2, Quilpue, Chile

Holder · RCD owner

Wuxi Fangqian Plastic Working Glove Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

9/F, A3 Bldg., No.777, West Jianzhu Rd., Binhu Dist., Wuxi, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (5)

Patent

Element or addition for protecting the fingers of safety gloves

EP2850957A1 · disclosed 2015-03-25

Patent

Same invention as EP2850957A1 for protecting the fingers of safety gloves

US2014/0304879A1 · disclosed 2014-10-16

Patent

protective glove

US2010/0071114A1 · disclosed 2010-03-25

Patent

protective glove

US2011/0041225A1 · disclosed 2011-02-24

Patent

protective glove

JP2009062649 · disclosed 2009-03-26

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(2)Article 8(1)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character and argued the fingertip covering was technically dictated and invisible as a component of a complex product.
  • The applicant relied on five earlier patent publications, chiefly EP2850957A1 and the corresponding US2014/0304879A1 disclosure.
  • The holder was invited to respond but filed no observations.
  • The Division rejected the Article 4(2) argument as unsubstantiated, found the earlier patent design disclosed, and held the contested design created the same overall impression on the informed user.
  • The application was upheld because the contested design lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b) CDR, so further examination of Article 8(1) and Article 5(1)(b) was unnecessary.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO

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

02.06

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000132104

vs Shenzhen Damai Network Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-05-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000127579

vs VICTORIA CARLOTA TERCEÑO JIMENEZ

2026-04-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000131324

vs Song Li

2026-03-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130815

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130769

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130811

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130812

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130814

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028