Invalidity · first instance · 2022-10-19
000117192
Contested design: 008631477-0001
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 008631477-0001 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
Rifetech s.r.o.via PDF extraction
Czechia (CZ)
Zelný trh 292/11, 60200 Brno, Czech Republic
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Praha Alfa-Med s.r.o.via PDF extraction
Czechia (CZ)
Křenova 438/5, 162 00 Praha 6, Czech Republic
Represented by
Jarmila Javoříková
Prior art cited (5)
Wayback Machine capture of the applicant's website showing the medical or diagnosis apparatus 'Sanoplasma 2'
https://rifetech.cz/ · Wayback Machine · disclosed 2021-01-24
Wayback Machine capture of the applicant's website showing the medical or diagnosis apparatus 'Sanoplasma 2'
https://rifetech.cz/ · Wayback Machine · disclosed 2021-02-24
Wayback Machine capture of the applicant's website showing the medical or diagnosis apparatus 'Sanoplasma 2'
https://rifetech.cz/ · Wayback Machine · disclosed 2021-02-28
Facebook post from 'Plazmový generátor Rifetech' showing the product 'Sanoplasma 2'
Facebook · disclosed 2020-08-06
Eight invoices showing sales of the product 'Sanoplasma 2' to customers in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and the United Kingdom
Czech Republic, Slovakia and the United Kingdom
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on earlier disclosures of its 'Sanoplasma 2' plasma generator before 26 July 2021.
- ›Holder argued the contested design had individual character, disputed the relevance of the applicant's comparison, and said any 2020 presentations were limited and not of the final RCD product.
- ›The Division accepted that the applicant's earlier design had been publicly disclosed under Article 7(1) CDR through website and Facebook evidence.
- ›Comparing the designs, the Division found significant differences in the control unit, lamp structure, proportions, ventilation openings, and handles, so the contested design produced a different overall impression.
- ›The application was rejected because the contested design had individual character and was not identical to the invoked prior design; costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENE
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000131246 vs Life Vac LLC | 2026-04-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 7 |
| 000131089 vs Rongrong Gao | 2026-04-23 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 7 |
| 000128555 vs Juliane Hesse-Ilyas | 2026-02-24 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 7 |
| 000129035 vs OMNIOXY SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA | 2025-09-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 7 |
| 000127199 vs Xiamen Tuoke Trading Co., Ltd. | 2025-03-10 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 7 |
| 000125355 vs Shenzhen Sainuotong Technology Co., Ltd. | 2024-10-23 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 7 |
| 000125317 vs Life Vac LLC | 2024-08-16 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 7 |
| 000123775 vs Schunk Ingenieurkeramik GmbH | 2024-07-24 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 7 |