DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015013606-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-04-24

000124675

Contested design: 015013606-0003

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 015013606-0003 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Portas Arcuense - Fábrica de Portas Seccionadasvia PDF extraction

Portugal (PT)

Parque Industrial de Padreiro, Lote 13, 4970-500 Arcos de Valdevez, Portugal

Represented by

Joana Jorge Cerqueira

Holder · RCD owner

Motorline Electrocelos, S.A.via PDF extraction

Portugal (PT)

Travessa do Sobreiro, n.º29, Lugar do Pinheiro, 4755-474 Barcelos, Portugal

Represented by

Patentree

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosureAnnex 2C

Amazon listing for the Seav LRS 2281 control panel design

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Seav-Electronic-Automation-Swinging-Integrated/dp/B06XY7HL7C · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2017-04-01

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character, relying on earlier control-panel designs disclosed online, especially the Amazon-listed Seav LRS 2281 design.
  • The holder argued some evidence was too unclear and that the contested design differed through multiple missing or differently shaped components, limited design freedom, and a crowded prior-art field.
  • The Division accepted Annex 2C as sufficient internet disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR because the screenshot and accompanying URL identified the product, source, and disclosure date.
  • Comparing the designs as a whole, the Division found that most components had the same placement and very similar shapes, and the identified differences did not alter the overall impression.
  • The application was upheld because the contested design lacked individual character under Articles 25(1)(b), 4(1), and 6(1)(b) CDR.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberEmmanuel COLLIN

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

13.0213.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129383

vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd.

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000129363

vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd.

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000131764

vs Dongguan Penghui New Energy Technology Co., Ltd

2026-03-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000129921

vs SHENZHEN EASTKING TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD

2026-03-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000131186

vs Electronic Way Technology Co.,Ltd

2026-03-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000128636

vs Guangzhou Quemou Trading Co., Ltd.

2026-02-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000128598

vs Guangzhou Quemou Trading Co., Ltd.

2026-02-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000129221

vs Shenzhen Guangtuo Da Lighting Co., LTD

2026-01-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138