Invalidity · first instance · 2020-11-27
000112481
Contested design: 003149848-0011
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld; the contested Community design is declared invalid and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.
Show verbatim operative text(fr)
1. La demande en nullité est accueillie. 2. Le dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré nº 003149848-0011 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 Chine
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 (6)
BRICORAMA catalogue offer for model "EDEN" (electric radiator)
BRICORAMA catalogue; screenshot indicates date range 26 November to 31 December 2014
BRICO DEPOT catalogue offer for model "ANA II" (electric radiator)
BRICO DEPOT catalogue dated 11-24 September 2015
BRICO DEPOT catalogue offer for model "CISCO" (electric radiator)
BRICO DEPOT catalogue dated November 2015
French registered design extract for an electric radiator model
French design No 017610-001 · Bulletin national · disclosed 2002-03-15
Registered Community design extract for an electric radiator model
RCD No 002053272-0006 · EUIPO design database · disclosed 2012-06-08
Registered Community design extract for an electric radiator model
RCD No 002493569-0002 · EUIPO design database · disclosed 2015-06-23
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on three prior catalogue disclosures and three earlier registered designs for electric radiators.
- ›The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
- ›The Division treated prior-art item 3 as clearly disclosed before the filing date and found the technical-function issue over the slots non-decisive for the comparison.
- ›It held that the contested design created the same overall impression as prior-art item 3, with only insignificant differences, so it lacked individual character under Article 6(1).
- ›The application was upheld, the contested RCD was declared invalid, and the holder was 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 |