DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006781761-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-12-23

000112164

Contested design: 006781761-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must reimburse the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(it)

1 .la domanda di nullità è accolta. 2.il disegno o modello comunitario registrato n. 006781761-0001 è dichiarato nullo. 3. la titolare sopporta le spese sostenute dalla richiedente, fissate in 750 EUR.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Prokapital Management, SIAvia PDF extraction

LV

Krdibattia UlmaSTI a gatve 2a, Riga, LV-1004, Lettonia

Represented by

Olga Vahatova

Holder · RCD owner

Ningbo Yinzhou Harbour Imp & Exp Co.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

CQ dNo.16 Panloni Road, Five township, Yinzhou District Ningbo City, Repubblica popolare cinese

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCD

massage element for acupressure products

RCD No 005242559-0001 · EUIPO design database · disclosed 2018-04-26

Registered RCDD2

massage element for acupressure products

RCD No 001552605-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2009-07-27

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)Article 6(2)Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character over two earlier RCDs and also invoked conflict with an earlier copyright-protected Latvian work.
  • The holder filed no observations within the deadline; later observations from a newly appointed representative were disregarded as late.
  • The Division found earlier RCD D2 had been disclosed, the designer's freedom was broadly wide, and the common flower-like spiked massage-element configuration dominated the overall impression.
  • The contested design lacked individual character under Article 6, so the application was upheld, the RCD was invalidated, and the Division did not examine the copyright ground.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberGailė Sakalaitė
  • MemberBirgit CESSY FILTENBORG

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

24.99

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131246

vs Life Vac LLC

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000131089

vs Rongrong Gao

2026-04-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000128555

vs Juliane Hesse-Ilyas

2026-02-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000129035

vs OMNIOXY SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA

2025-09-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000127199

vs Xiamen Tuoke Trading Co., Ltd.

2025-03-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000125355

vs Shenzhen Sainuotong Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-10-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000125317

vs Life Vac LLC

2024-08-16REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000123775

vs Schunk Ingenieurkeramik GmbH

2024-07-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248