Invalidity · first instance · 2020-10-01
000110441
Contested design: 006537908-0001
Outcome
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 0065379080001 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
Nanchang Smile Technology Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Room 1201, 12th Floor, MSQ Building, No. 888 Gaoxin South Avenue, Qingshan Lake District, Nanchang 330024, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
José Izquierdo Faces
Holder · RCD owner
Nanchang Dentalbright Technology Co.,Ltd
China (CN)
Bldg. 182, Nanchang Jiahai Industrial Park, No. 2799, Tianxiang Ave., High-tech Zone, Nanchang, Jiangxi, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Marinos Cleanthous
Prior art cited (4)
Chinese design patent for teeth-whitening equipment
ZL 2019 3 0037416.4 · China · disclosed 2019-06-04
Proforma invoice, invoices, and online transaction records for 'wireless teeth whitening' and 'IVISMILE teeth whitening' kits
Invoices and online transaction records
Mobile-device snapshot printouts allegedly showing IVISMILE teeth-whitening kits on Instagram
ivismiletoothwhitening · Instagram (alleged)
Mobile-device snapshot printout of a product image with no proven link to the applicant or contested disclosure
Hq_amin_solution · Instagram (alleged)
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on a Chinese design patent, invoices and transaction records, and alleged Instagram disclosures of IVISMILE teeth-whitening kits.
- ›Holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
- ›The Division found the patent was published after the contested design filing date and the invoices and screenshots did not reliably prove what design was disclosed, where, when, or under what circumstances.
- ›Because prior disclosure under Article 7 CDR was not proven, the Division did not examine novelty or individual character further and rejected the application.
Deciding panel
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000125115 vs Mihua Li | 2024-07-31 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |
| 000123998 vs Shenzhen First Century Technology Co., Ltd. | 2024-05-16 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |
| 000122441 vs Piotr Malinowski | 2024-05-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |
| 000120698 vs Guangdong Roman Technology Co., Ltd | 2024-01-25 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |
| 000108601 vs Wahl Clipper Corporation | 2023-07-31 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |
| 000120778 vs GUANGDONG HUANENGDA ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES CO.,LTD. | 2023-07-17 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |
| 000120758 vs Zhaojie Zhang | 2023-07-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |
| 000119166 vs Salon Europe Limited | 2023-06-09 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |