DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008217608-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-06-16

000125316

Contested design: 008217608-0001

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected and the applicant must pay the holder’s fixed costs of EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered EU design No 0082176080001 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

Computime Group Limitedvia PDF extraction

Hong Kong (HK)

89 Queensway, Hong Kong

Represented by

DLA Piper UK LLP

Holder · RCD owner

ENGO Controls Spółka z Ograniczoną Odpowiedzialnością, Spółka Komandytowavia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Radostowice, Poland

Prior art cited (3)

Prior useD1⚠ rejected as evidence

'SAL91W1 Facelift' temperature control system

SALUS Technology Group product specification and SALUS brochure · disclosed 2010-01-18

Prior useD2⚠ rejected as evidence

original 'SAL91' temperature control system design

Computime Enterprise Ltd. product specification · disclosed 1995-03-07

PublicationD3⚠ rejected as evidence

temperature control system shown in a Romanian magazine advertisement

Info Construct magazine advertisement

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the thermostat design lacked novelty and individual character over D1, D2 and D3, which it said had been disclosed before the contested filing date.
  • Holder replied that disclosure of the earlier designs was unproven and that visible differences across the screens, buttons, panels, rear view and leg preserved novelty and individual character.
  • The Division held that only prior designs properly identified and argued in the application could be assessed, and it disregarded later material that altered the subject matter.
  • It found D1 and D2 were supported only by applicant-origin documents and a related witness statement, while D3 was too illegible to establish its features, source or publication date.
  • Because none of the invoked designs was proven disclosed under Article 7(1), the invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberDimitrios ANDRIANOPOULOS

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

10.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000125988

vs ALEKSANDRA MACIĄGOWSKA - FLEXISTYLE

2025-07-11Art 25(1)(b)107
000119640

vs Shenzhen Mai ke er Industrial Co., Ltd.

2023-03-21Art 25(1)(b)107
000117938

vs Anhui Qianhai Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.

2022-08-31Art 25(1)(b)107
000115101

vs Changwei LIU

2021-08-24Art 25(1)(b)107
000110623

vs Luminal Agency S.r.l.

2021-07-16Art 25(1)(b)107
000106842

vs WENZHOU ALION ELECTRONICS CO.,LTD.

2019-10-28Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)107
000106839

vs WENZHOU ALION ELECTRONICS CO.,LTD.

2019-09-17Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)107
000106841

vs WENZHOU ALION ELECTRONICS CO.,LTD.

2019-09-17Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)107