DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008306385-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-11-04

000115890

Contested design: 008306385-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application inadmissible

The invalidity application is rejected as inadmissible, and the invalidity fee will not be refunded.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected as inadmissible. 2. The fee for the application for a declaration of invalidity will not be refunded.

CostsNo costs order

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Personality Gym ABvia PDF extraction

Sweden (SE)

Bultvägen 5, 553 02 Jönköping, Sweden

Holder · RCD owner

Hadley International Trading (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Room 1228, Building 1, Sushangxindi plaza, 555 Zongguantang RD, Gusu district, Suzhou, Jiangsu 215000, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Alberto Maria Giordano

Prior art cited (3)

Patent⚠ rejected as evidence

copies of German and United Kingdom patents submitted to support the applicant's entitlement claim

Germany; United Kingdom

Patent⚠ rejected as evidence

list of patents in the United States submitted to support the applicant's entitlement claim

United States

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

four screenshots from a Facebook account said to belong to 'NÜO Athletic innovation' showing the products

Facebook · disclosed 2016-01-01

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(c)Article 25(2)Article 14

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(c) CDR, alleging the holder copied its product and submitting patents and Facebook screenshots to support entitlement.
  • Holder filed no observations; the decision records no substantive response from the design holder.
  • The Division held Article 25(1)(c) requires a prior national court decision establishing the applicant's entitlement to the contested design under Article 14 CDR.
  • Because no such court decision was filed and the deficiency was not remedied in time, the application was inadmissible and the fee was not refunded.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL

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

21.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131885

vs Zhenkai Cui

2026-04-30REUD invalidated215
000129622

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidated215
000129681

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidated215
000126976

vs Dohány Kft.

2026-04-08REUD invalidated215
000131547

vs Brandworl Management Co., Limited

2026-04-07REUD invalidated215
000131507

vs Shenzhen Chenyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-31REUD invalidated215
000131564

vs NOVOWISE LTD

2026-03-12Art 25(1)(c)215
000130128

vs joboo GmbH

2026-02-03REUD invalidated215