DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005965001-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-09-21

000117532

Contested design: 005965001-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the order states that the holder bears the costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 005965001-0001 is rejected. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Suzhou Start Clean Electric Technology Co.,Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

No.2006, Zuanshi Road, Weitang Town, Xiangcheng District, Suzhou / Jiangsu 215134, China

Represented by

Goldcliff Stark

Holder · RCD owner

Suzhou Dibea Electrical Technology Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Building 8, 9, 10, No. 20, Xingnan Road, Wuzhong District, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

Represented by

José Izquierdo Faces

Prior art cited (6)

National designD1

vacuum cleaner

CN 304903846 S · Chinese Patent Office · disclosed 2018-11-20

National designD2

vacuum cleaner

CN 304974839 S · Chinese Patent Office · disclosed 2019-01-01

National designD3

vacuum cleaner

CN 304514647 S · Chinese Patent Office · disclosed 2018-02-23

National designD4

vacuum cleaner

CN 304514647 S · Chinese Patent Office · disclosed 2018-02-23

National designD5

vacuum cleaner

CN 304514647 S · Chinese Patent Office · disclosed 2018-02-23

National designD6

vacuum cleaner

CN 304514647 S · Chinese Patent Office · disclosed 2018-02-23

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6(1)Article 7(1)Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(a)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character over Chinese designs D1 to D6 and also argued the registered views were inconsistent under Article 3(a).
  • The holder denied the prior designs were shown to EU specialised circles and argued the compared vacuum cleaners differed in shape, decoration, brush structure and wheel arrangement.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1 to D6 under Article 7(1) and found the informed user would give less weight to standard vacuum-cleaner features.
  • It held that the differing shapes and decoration created a different overall impression and that the registration still clearly represented a single product, so invalidity was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO

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

15.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000119138

vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

2023-12-19Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)159
000119103

vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

2023-12-19Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)159
000112341

vs Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH

2021-08-02Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)159
000112381

vs Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH

2021-08-02Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)159
000112382

vs Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH

2021-07-26Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)159
000112383

vs Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH

2021-07-26Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)159
000124955

vs Terence A.H.F. Noppe h.o.d.n. EasySwift

2025-09-05Art 25(1)(b)157
000122714

vs LEIFHEIT AG

2024-06-21Art 25(1)(b)157