Invalidity · first instance · 2021-04-08
000110121
Contested design: 002773812-0004
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 0027738120004 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
Pitk Pelotas, S.L.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Polígono Industrial Noain-Esquiroz, calle P, Número 22, 31110 Noain, Spain
Represented by
Jesús Maria Zugarrondo Temiño
Holder · RCD owner
Technogym S.p.A.
Italy (IT)
Via G. Perticari, 20, 47035, Gambettola, Forli’ – Cesena, Italy
Represented by
Prior art cited (9)
handle for a fitness machine
CN2581004Y · China · disclosed 2003-10-22
handle for a fitness machine
CN2569834Y · China · disclosed 2003-09-03
handle for a fitness machine
CN2829803Y · China · disclosed 2006-10-25
handle for a fitness machine
CN201120081Y · China · disclosed 2008-09-24
handle for a fitness machine
TWM502489U · Taiwan · disclosed 2015-06-11
handle for a fitness machine
CN204233685U · China · disclosed 2015-04-01
handle for a fitness machine
CN2514864Y · China · disclosed 2002-10-09
handle for a fitness machine
CN102908750A · China · disclosed 2013-02-06
handle for a fitness machine
CN2892180Y · China · disclosed 2007-04-25
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on nine earlier Chinese and Taiwanese patent disclosures for similar fitness-machine handles.
- ›The holder argued the contested handle used standardised functional features in a crowded sector and that the cited designs differed in proportions, angles, and added elements.
- ›The Division accepted the patent extracts as sufficient proof of disclosure under Article 7(1) and assessed individual character primarily against the earlier designs separately.
- ›It found D1 and D2 created different overall impressions, but D3 produced the same overall impression on the informed user, so the contested design lacked individual character and was invalidated.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000131885 vs Zhenkai Cui | 2026-04-30 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000129622 vs Squar3D Aps | 2026-04-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000129681 vs Squar3D Aps | 2026-04-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000126976 vs Dohány Kft. | 2026-04-08 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000131547 vs Brandworl Management Co., Limited | 2026-04-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000131507 vs Shenzhen Chenyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. | 2026-03-31 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000130128 vs joboo GmbH | 2026-02-03 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000130086 vs CROSS BORDEP (HK) CO., LIMITED | 2026-02-02 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |