DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006751616-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-08-24

000115101

Contested design: 006751616-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay 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 0067516160001 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

Luminal Agency S.r.l.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Cappuccini 16, 20122, Milano, Italy

Represented by

Bugnion S.p.a.

Holder · RCD owner

Changwei Liuvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Room 1301, Building B, Olive Oasis Home, No. 5, Jingtian East Road, Futian Distirct, Shenzhen, Guangdong, People's Republic of China

Represented by

Marinos Cleanthous

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDD1

watch

0053063880001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-06-21

Web disclosureD2

watch shown in a screenshot from the applicant's Facebook account

Facebook · disclosed 2018-04-01

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 25(1)(d)Article 7(1)Article 6(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, and for conflict with an earlier design right, relying on earlier RCD No 0053063880001 and marketing disclosures of similar watches.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply.
  • The Division found Article 25(1)(d) inapplicable because the earlier RCD had been published before the contested design’s filing date.
  • It accepted disclosure of D1 and a Facebook-post design, but found visible differences in bezel, base, lugs, and crown that produced a different overall impression.
  • The contested design retained individual character and novelty, so the application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • 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

10.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000125988

vs ALEKSANDRA MACIĄGOWSKA - FLEXISTYLE

2025-07-11Art 25(1)(b)107
000125316

vs ENGO CONTROLS SPÓŁKA Z OGRANICZONĄ ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚCIĄ, SPÓŁKA KOMANDYTOWA

2025-06-16Art 25(1)(b)107
000119640

vs Shenzhen Mai ke er Industrial Co., Ltd.

2023-03-21Art 25(1)(b)107
000117938

vs Anhui Qianhai Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.

2022-08-31Art 25(1)(b)107
000110623

vs Luminal Agency S.r.l.

2021-07-16Art 25(1)(b)107
000112763

vs Shenzhen Heiman Technology Co., Ltd.

2021-07-16REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)107
000108312

vs SHENZHEN FLEDEC TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

2020-03-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(d)107
000107059

vs Feng Li

2019-12-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)107