DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002629741-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-06-10

000111841

Contested design: 002629741-0003

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0026297410003 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

Guangzhou Bytech Technology Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

9011, Building 22-24, No. 251, Kehua Street, Wushan Road, Tianhe District, Guangdong Province, Guangzhou City, People's Republic of China

Holder · RCD owner

Daniel Surbuvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

strada Becicherecu-Irlic, nr. 311, Timisoara, Romania

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosureD1

'Sport Original Dittmann Adhesive Electrodes 4 x 4 cm' adhesive electrode pads offered on amazon.de

ASIN B002N2Z03A · amazon.de · disclosed 2009-08-28

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for adhesive electrodes, arguing Amazon evidence showed an identical earlier design disclosed before the RCD filing date.
  • The holder denied sufficient disclosure, saying Amazon screenshots, ASIN dating and product images could be altered and did not prove the earlier design's publication date.
  • The Division accepted the Amazon screenshots and corroborating review evidence as solid proof that D1 was publicly disclosed under Article 7(1) CDR.
  • Comparing only the protected shape features, the Division found the contested design produced the same overall impression as D1 and lacked individual character.
  • The application was upheld, the RCD was declared invalid in full, and the holder was ordered to pay EUR 750 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI

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

13.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129383

vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd.

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000129363

vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd.

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000131764

vs Dongguan Penghui New Energy Technology Co., Ltd

2026-03-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000129921

vs SHENZHEN EASTKING TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD

2026-03-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000131186

vs Electronic Way Technology Co.,Ltd

2026-03-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000128636

vs Guangzhou Quemou Trading Co., Ltd.

2026-02-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000128598

vs Guangzhou Quemou Trading Co., Ltd.

2026-02-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000129221

vs Shenzhen Guangtuo Da Lighting Co., LTD

2026-01-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138