Invalidity · first instance · 2020-11-26
000109141
Contested design: 004396729-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's fixed costs of EUR 750.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 004396729-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Aquavit Pharmaceuticals, Inc.via PDF extraction
United States (US)
145 W. 57TH ST, 15TH FL., New York 10019, United States of America
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
U-BioMed Inc.via PDF extraction
South Korea (KR)
149-6, Yuram-ro, Dong-gu, Daegu, Republic of Korea
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
'Aquagold fine touch' cosmetic device design shown on nsmedicaldevices.com
http://www.nsmedicaldevices.com · nsmedicaldevices.com · disclosed 2014-03-23
'Aquagold fine touch' cosmetic device design shown on aquagoldfinetouch.com
www.aquagoldfinetouch.com · aquagoldfinetouch.com via web archive · disclosed 2014-10-02
Aesthetics journal December 2014 article showing the 'Aquagold fine touch' design
https://issuu.com/aestheticsjournal/docs/aesthetics_december_2014 · Aesthetics journal on Issuu
screen captures of YouTube videos disclosing the 'Aquagold fine touch' design
YouTube screenshots of 'Aquagold fine touch' videos · YouTube · disclosed 2014-03-20
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested cosmetic-device design lacked novelty and individual character because the earlier 'Aquagold fine touch' design, including its overall shape and wording, had been disclosed online before filing.
- ›The holder disputed the reliability and dating of the YouTube and website evidence, challenged the quality of the prior-design views, and argued that differences in dimensions, needles, transparency, colours, and base width preserved novelty.
- ›The Division held that the combined YouTube, website, web-archive, and magazine evidence reliably proved prior disclosure under Article 7 and provided sufficiently clear views for comparison.
- ›It found all relevant features of the contested RCD present in the earlier design, treated any differences as immaterial, held the RCD not novel under Article 5, and declared it invalid with costs against the holder.
Deciding panel
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberBirgit CESSY FILTENBORG
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000130164 vs Moritz Neugebauer | 2026-05-22 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 8 |
| 000129241 vs Yi Wing Global Limited | 2026-05-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 8 |
| 000132044 vs Xucan XU | 2026-05-08 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 8 |
| 000131244 vs Shenzhen Lumei E-commerce Co., Ltd. | 2026-03-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 8 |
| 000130964 vs Changde Yameixun Network Technology Co., Ltd. | 2026-02-06 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 8 |
| 000130541 vs Medintim SL | 2025-12-23 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 8 |
| 000128396 vs Koninklijke Philips N.V. | 2025-12-15 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 8 |
| 000128638 vs Xiaoyan Kang | 2025-12-10 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 8 |