Invalidity · first instance · 2020-12-02
000110044
Contested design: 006135190-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0061351900001 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
Yuyao Elet Appliance Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
No 58, North Guangming Road, Simen Town, Yuyao, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
José Izquierdo Faces
Holder · RCD owner
Shenzhen Greenway Electronic Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
The 1,2,3 Floor of 90th Building, The Second Industry Park of Lisonglang Community, Gongming Street, Guangming New District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
waterproof connectors
RCD No 0030432490006 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-05-03
sale in the EU of the corresponding waterproof connector product by Ningbo Hengpeng International Trading Co. Ltd.
EU sales / Ningbo Hengpeng International Trading Co. Ltd. · disclosed 2017-10-28
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over its earlier RCD for waterproof connectors and alleged EU sales of the earlier product before the contested priority date.
- ›The holder argued the designs differed materially in shape, dimensions and width, that the contested design had individual character, and that some features were technically dictated.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of the earlier RCD through its 2016 Community Designs Bulletin publication and found no need to assess additional disclosure evidence.
- ›Despite a similar layout, the Division found significant differences in proportions, symmetry and body features, producing a different overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The application was rejected because the contested RCD had individual character and was not identical to the prior design; the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000124975 vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH | 2025-08-01 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000124937 vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH | 2025-07-14 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000126960 vs Qiu Chen | 2025-05-21 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000122734 vs Changjiang Xutangrui Technology Co., Ltd. | 2024-06-05 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000122617 vs Shanghai Cuiliang E-commerce Co., Ltd | 2024-02-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000121023 vs Piotr Malinowski | 2023-07-21 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000117379 vs WATT AND SEA | 2022-12-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000116129 vs WD Plus GmbH | 2022-08-30 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |