Invalidity · first instance · 2022-06-09
000116470
Contested design: 007990692-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear 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 007990692-0001 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
Aures Technologies, Société Anonymevia PDF extraction
France (FR)
24 bis rue Léonard de Vinci ZAC des Folies, 91090 Lisses, France
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Senor Tech CO., LTD.via PDF extraction
Taiwan (TW)
No.165, Kangning Street, Xizhi District, New Taipei City 22150, Taiwan
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
point-of-sale terminal
Community design No. 005772563-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-10-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character over earlier Community design No. 005772563-0001 for point-of-sale terminals.
- ›Holder argued the cited design's common features were technically driven and that the contested design differed in the base, arm, screen, folded profile, and colour distribution.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of the earlier RCD, found the designer still had meaningful freedom, and held the compared designs created different overall impressions on the informed user.
- ›The invalidity ground under Article 25(1)(b) failed, so the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
- MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENE
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129183 vs Yi Duan | 2025-09-16 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000124156 vs Autoelektronika Maciej Świdnicki | 2024-07-02 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000121322 vs Shenzhen Hongshi Trading Co., Ltd. | 2024-02-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000116928 vs Nintendo Co., Ltd. | 2022-08-31 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000115511 vs AIMO MARKING CO., LTD | 2021-11-25 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000107739 vs Shenzhen Sinobry Electronic Ltd | 2020-01-16 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000101619 vs caresyntax GmbH | 2019-06-17 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000102939 vs Andres Meseguer Lozano | 2019-06-05 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |