Invalidity · first instance · 2020-11-27
000112461
Contested design: 003149848-0009
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld; the contested registered Community design is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.
Show verbatim operative text(fr)
1. La demande en nullité est accueillie. 2. Le dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré nº 003149848-0009 est déclaré nul. 3. La titulaire supporte les frais exposés par la demanderesse, fixés à 750 EUR.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Gmerit Electric Manufacturing Co Ltdvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
No. 3 of B10-1-02, Jiyue Industrial Zone, Xichong Village Committee, Lunjiao Town, Shunde, Foshan, Guangdong, République Polulaire de China
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Texas de Francevia PDF extraction
France (FR)
220 rue Gustave Eiffel, ZI Les Milles, 13854 Aix-en-Provence, France
Represented by
Prior art cited (7)
BRICO DEPOT catalog offering for sale a 'Radiateurs à inertie sèche' electric radiator model
BRICO DEPOT catalog · disclosed 2016-03-04
BRICO DEPOT catalog offering an earlier electric radiator model
BRICO DEPOT catalog · disclosed 2014-11-28
offer for sale of the 'ASPEK' model
https://www.catalogue-az.fr/catalogue/brico-depot-offres-du-11-septembrie-2015/ · catalogue-az.fr · disclosed 2015-09-11
pages showing a 'blyss' electric radiator model offered for sale
ISSUU.com / Castorama catalog · ISSUU.com · disclosed 2015-09-28
Cdiscount offer pages for an electric radiator model
Cdiscount pages printed on 2020-06-02 · Cdiscount
database extracts for an earlier Community design
DMC No 002650259-001 · EUIPO database · disclosed 2015-03-25
database extracts for an earlier Community design
DMC No 001843731-0001 · EUIPO database · disclosed 2011-04-04
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant argued the contested electric radiator design lacked novelty and, in any event, individual character over five earlier market disclosures and two earlier Community designs.
- ›Holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
- ›The Division found disclosures 1 and 4 were clearly proven, treated the slot feature as non-decisive for the comparison, and held the remaining similarities dominated the informed user's overall impression.
- ›The contested design lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b); the application was upheld, the design declared invalid, and the holder ordered to pay EUR 750 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE
- MemberJessica LEWIS
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000132264 vs SHANDONG QIYUE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD | 2026-05-26 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000131884 vs Zhaoqing Mikasi Home Hardware Co., LTD | 2026-03-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000130601 vs Zhou Canbin | 2026-01-15 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000127275 vs GRZEGORZ PIĄTEK PHU "TOP SERVIS" | 2025-09-17 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000128177 vs DECATHLON | 2025-08-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000126775 vs Ecomsoul Pro SRL | 2025-07-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000126715 | 2025-07-10 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000128196 vs Rafał Sowa | 2025-07-08 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |