DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006577110-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-11-10

000114301

Contested design: 006577110-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 006577110-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Concept2, Inc.via PDF extraction

United States (US)

105 Industrial Park Drive, Morrisville, Vermont 05661, United States of America

Represented by

Bugnion S.P.A.

Holder · RCD owner

Yin-Hsuan Leevia PDF extraction

Taiwan (TW)

No. 61, Meizhou 2nd Rd., Yilan City, Yilan County 260, Taiwan (ROC)

Represented by

Cabinet Chaillot

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure

Concept2 Model D indoor rowing machine, grey variant

http://www.concept2.com (Wayback Machine) · Wayback Machine Internet Archive · disclosed 2014-07-01

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the contested rowing machine lacked individual character because it reproduced the overall appearance of its widely marketed Model D machine.
  • The holder said informed users would notice differences in the wheel cover, pedals, seat, and other details, and that technical constraints limited the designer’s freedom.
  • The Division accepted prior disclosure of the grey Model D, found the informed user highly attentive but the designer still had ample freedom, and treated the cited differences as minor details.
  • It held the two machines created the same overall impression, upheld the application for lack of individual character, and ordered the holder to pay costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • 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

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 invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129622

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129681

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000126976

vs Dohány Kft.

2026-04-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131547

vs Brandworl Management Co., Limited

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131507

vs Shenzhen Chenyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-31REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130128

vs joboo GmbH

2026-02-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130086

vs CROSS BORDEP (HK) CO., LIMITED

2026-02-02REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218