DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008005813-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-11-17

000120882

Contested design: 008005813-0002

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 008005813-0002 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

Ningbo Vasa Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

Floor 2, Bld 4, Maojiacao Industrial Area Qianzhou Shounan Sub-District, Yinzhou, Ningbo, China

Represented by

Pons IP, S.A.

Holder · RCD owner

Electronic Controls Companyvia PDF extraction

United States (US)

833 - W. Diamond, Boise, Idaho 83705, United States

Represented by

Murgitroyd & Company

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDD1

alarm lights

Community design No 0069641930001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2019-10-14

Web disclosureD2

warning light design shown in a YouTube video

mpower Fascia Installation Espanol · YouTube · disclosed 2016-09-27

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested warning-light design lacked individual character over earlier design D1 and a YouTube disclosure D2, and said the grooves should be disregarded as solely technical.
  • Holder argued D1 and D2 created different overall impressions and contended Article 8(1) could not invalidate the design because several visible features were not solely dictated by function.
  • The Division accepted D1 and the YouTube screenshot for D2 as prior disclosures under Article 7(1), but disregarded two extra images that were not linked to the video.
  • It found the contested design produced a different overall impression because D1's emitters differed clearly and D2's details were too unclear, so the invalidity application was rejected with costs against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ

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

10.06

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000119920

vs Meyn Beheer B.V.

2023-11-27Art 25(1)(b)107
000120881

vs ELECTRONIC CONTROLS COMPANY

2023-11-17Art 25(1)(b)107
000130127

vs ALBOR BOGDAN NIEDBAŁA

2026-01-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)105
000130161

vs ALBOR BOGDAN NIEDBAŁA

2026-01-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)105
000125988

vs ALEKSANDRA MACIĄGOWSKA - FLEXISTYLE

2025-07-11Art 25(1)(b)105
000125316

vs ENGO CONTROLS SPÓŁKA Z OGRANICZONĄ ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚCIĄ, SPÓŁKA KOMANDYTOWA

2025-06-16Art 25(1)(b)105
000127515

vs Changzhou Fengxue Network Technology Co., Ltd.

2025-06-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)105
0001274582025-04-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)105