DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008412571-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-06-21

000122714

Contested design: 008412571-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 008412571-0001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Stemoo Electric Company Limitedvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Huazhuang Road, Suzhou, China

Represented by

Andrea Albert Catala

Holder · RCD owner

Leifheit AGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Leifheitstr., 56377 Nassau, Deutschland

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureD1

Neatec M21 Lightweight Steam Mop Upright Steam Cleaner (Champagne)

ASIN B01M6EAMTN · Amazon.de · disclosed 2016-11-07

Web disclosureD2

Neatec M21 Lightweight Steam Mop Upright Steam Cleaner (Blue)

ASIN B01M5LJX0V · Amazon.de · disclosed 2016-11-07

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicants argued that the contested steam mop lacked individual character over two Neatec M21 steam mops allegedly sold on Amazon since 2016, promoted on Twitter in 2017, and supported by May 2017 Amazon invoices.
  • The holder contested public availability and argued that technical constraints limited design freedom and that the contested design differed in the mop head, grip line, tank shape, and absence of coloured inlays and raised appliques.
  • The Division accepted the Amazon listings as sufficient proof of disclosure under Article 7(1), but rejected the separate test-report reference because no exact source or publication evidence was provided.
  • It found the differences in the head shape, middle section, tank, surface treatment, and grip angle enough to create a different overall impression, so the invalidity application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload 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
000124955

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

2025-09-05Art 25(1)(b)157
000122955

vs Jun Yu

2024-02-26Art 25(1)(b)157
000120382

vs Jan Ładny

2024-01-09Art 25(1)(b)157
000119103

vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

2023-12-19Art 25(1)(b)157
000119138

vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

2023-12-19Art 25(1)(b)157
000116628

vs DCX POLSKA Sp. z o.o.

2023-01-13Art 25(1)(b)157
000117532

vs Suzhou Dibea Electrical Technology Co., Ltd.

2022-09-21Art 25(1)(b)157
000112421

vs Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH

2021-08-03Art 25(1)(b)157