DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003764570-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-08-31

000116928

Contested design: 003764570-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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 0037645700001 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

Shenzhen Huibaike Network Technology Co. Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Taoyuan Street, Tanglang Community, Tangyi Road, Tanglang New Village, Room 101, No. 9, Nanshan, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518055, China

Holder · RCD owner

Nintendo Co., Ltd.

Japan (JP)

111 Hokotate-cho, Kamitoba, Minami-ku, Kyoto-shi, Kyoto 601-8501, Japan

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDD1

part of game control pads

RCD No 0029991930001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-05-18

Web disclosureD2

Xbox Wireless Controller for Xbox One S

ASIN B01GVN10VM / model 1708 · amazon.co.uk, xbox.fandom.com, YouTube, GameSpot · disclosed 2016-06-10

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character over earlier controller designs D1 and D2, arguing the contested controller was strikingly similar in shape and button layout.
  • The holder challenged D2 disclosure, argued D1's broken-line features should be ignored, and maintained the contested design's additional views, handle shape, and overall form created a different impression.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of both D1 and D2, found the informed user attentive and the designer's freedom at least average, and compared the full registered appearance of the contested design.
  • It held that differences in handle shaping, the connection to the central part, button arrangement, and other visible features gave the contested design a different overall impression, so invalidity was refused.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
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

14.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129183

vs Yi Duan

2025-09-16Art 25(1)(b)147
000124156

vs Autoelektronika Maciej Świdnicki

2024-07-02Art 25(1)(b)147
000121322

vs Shenzhen Hongshi Trading Co., Ltd.

2024-02-15Art 25(1)(b)147
000116470

vs SENOR TECH CO., LTD.

2022-06-09Art 25(1)(b)147
000115511

vs AIMO MARKING CO., LTD

2021-11-25Art 25(1)(b)147
000107739

vs Shenzhen Sinobry Electronic Ltd

2020-01-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)147
000101619

vs caresyntax GmbH

2019-06-17Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)147
000102939

vs Andres Meseguer Lozano

2019-06-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)147