DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006611570-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-05-17

000110065

Contested design: 006611570-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant is ordered to pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Se deniega la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado nº 0066115700001. 2. Se condena al solicitante a que sufrague las costas del titular, fijadas en 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

CAYAGO TEC GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Benzstraße 10, 32108 Bad Salzuflen, Alemania

Represented by

Jordi Güell Serra

Holder · RCD owner

iAQUA (Shenzhen) Limited

China (CN)

No. 6 Building Huayisheng Industrial Park, No 4 industrial Zone, Fenghuang, Fuyong, Shenzhen, República Popular China

Represented by

Curell Suñol, S.L.P.

Prior art cited (4)

Registered RCDD1

sports apparatus

RCD No 2077206-0004 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2012-09-10

Registered RCDD2

sports apparatus

RCD No 2077206-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2012-09-10

Registered RCDD3

sports apparatus

RCD No 2077206-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2012-09-10

Registered RCDD4

sports apparatus

RCD No 2077206-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2012-09-10

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 25(1)(d)Article 4Article 6Article 7

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character and conflict with earlier RCDs D1-D4, relying on prior registrations, expert evidence, and infringement-related materials.
  • Holder argued the contested design created a different overall impression, the infringement history was irrelevant, and the applicant's own filings showed small design changes can still be distinctive.
  • The Division found Article 25(1)(d) inapplicable because the earlier designs were published before the contested filing date, so that ground failed without further merits analysis.
  • On Article 25(1)(b), the Division accepted disclosure of D1-D4 but held differences in the bow, torso support, rear shape, and lower keel gave the contested design individual character.
  • The invalidity application was rejected in full and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder's representation costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

12.06

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000110066

vs iAQUA (Shenzhen) Limited

2021-05-17Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)129
000106480

vs Scooterson Inc.

2020-07-16Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)129
000010537

vs OTO NUMUNE OTOMOTIV SANAYI VE TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI

2018-04-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)129
000010538

vs OTO NUMUNE OTOMOTIV SANAYI VE TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI

2018-04-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)129
000128826

vs Shenzhen Lireder Industrial Co., Ltd.

2025-08-18Art 25(1)(b)127
000120579

vs Lohia e-mobility GmbH

2025-03-12Art 25(1)(b)127
000126216

vs Yiwu Guanze Trading Co., Ltd.

2024-10-21Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)127
000120480

vs VER PLAST S.r.l.

2023-11-13Art 25(1)(b)127