Invalidity · first instance · 2020-11-24
000107300
Contested design: 002077206-0004
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 002077206-0004 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
iAqua Limitedvia PDF extraction
Hong Kong (HK)
Rooms 2102-3 China Insurance Group Building 141 Des Voeux Road Central, Hong Kong, Sonderverwaltungszone Hongkong der Volksrepublik China
Holder · RCD owner
Cayago Tec GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Benzstraße 10, 32108 Bad Salzuflen, Deutschland
Prior art cited (6)
motor watercraft relied on as prior design disclosure
Patent No. 100 09 278.0 · DPMA database · disclosed 2001-09-13
"DELFJET" electro-jet water-sport craft
schweizerdesign.com
SEABOB diver sled / water scooter
RCD No. 000284567-0001 · EUIPO Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2005-04-05
SEABOB quick-start guide showing the earlier design
Rotinor GmbH quick-start guide
"SEABOB CAYAGO F7" booklet showing the earlier design
SEABOB F7 booklet
"SEABOB F5/F5 S" design submitted for the red dot design award
schweizerdesign.com / red dot design award materials · disclosed 2011-02-09
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested underwater scooter lacked novelty and individual character over D1 to D6, especially earlier SEABOB and DELFJET designs.
- ›The holder said the contested design remained new and distinctive, challenged several disclosures, and argued D6 fell within the 12-month grace period stemming from its own predecessor's disclosure.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of D3 and supporting D4-D5, rejected D1 and D2 as insufficiently proven disclosures, and treated D6 as irrelevant because any disclosure was within Article 7(2) grace period.
- ›Comparing D3 with the contested design, the Division found clear differences in proportions, side profile, controls, and rear section, so the design retained novelty and individual character; the application was rejected with costs against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000128896 vs Sc Pitikot Store Srl | 2025-08-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000124438 vs АУТДОР ПЛЕЙ | 2025-04-03 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000126927 vs Jiujiang Storm E-Commerce Co., Ltd. | 2025-03-25 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000121616 vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o. | 2024-05-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000121617 vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o. | 2024-05-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000121615 vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o. | 2024-05-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000114244 vs UTILIS | 2024-01-09 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000121427 vs Jinhua Baiwei Plastic Products Co., Ltd. | 2023-11-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |