DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015039369-0011

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-05-28

000127957

Contested design: 015039369-0011

EUDRmedium-confidence extraction

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 EU design No 0150393690011 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

Novoferm tormatic GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Dortmund, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Suzhou Bimeng Technology Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, China

Represented by

Krzysztof Breguła

Prior art cited (2)

Prior useD1⚠ rejected as evidence

first invoked prior hand-held transmitter design shown in the applicant's 2007 brochure and trade-fair materials

applicant brochure and trade-fair exhibits

Prior useD2⚠ rejected as evidence

second invoked prior hand-held transmitter design shown in the applicant's 2007 brochure and trade-fair materials

applicant brochure and trade-fair exhibits

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, alleging the contested remote-control design copied its earlier transmitters marketed and exhibited since 2007.
  • It relied on a 2007 brochure, trade-fair photographs, an organiser letter, and a statutory declaration from its head of R&D.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found the disclosure evidence insufficient and the organiser letter inadmissible for language reasons; the invoked designs were not objectively proven disclosed before filing.
  • It added that the available monochrome prior-design views were not identical to the seven-view coloured contested design, so the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberCarlos MATEO PÉREZ
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL

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

14.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131484

vs Junxian Wei

2026-05-20Art 25(1)(b)147
000127656

vs Suzhou Bimeng Technology Co., Ltd.

2025-09-26Art 25(1)(b)147
000126456

vs Shenzhen Weibo Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-12-12Art 25(1)(b)147
000106799

vs ADS LESZEK KOWALIK, BARTŁOMIEJ WŁODARCZYK SPÓŁKA CYWILNA

2020-04-06Art 25(1)(b)147
000106800

vs ADS LESZEK KOWALIK, BARTŁOMIEJ WŁODARCZYK SPÓŁKA CYWILNA

2020-04-06Art 25(1)(b)147
000130850

vs Michael AMARA

2026-04-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)145
000131224

vs Shenzhen Ruixin Fengshuo Electronic Co., Ltd

2026-03-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)145
000130970

vs Liu yanqiong

2026-02-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)145