Invalidity · first instance · 2025-09-26
000127656
Contested design: 015039369-0010
Outcome
The invalidity application against registered EU design No 015039369-0010 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 015039369-0010 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
FAAC S.p.A.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Zola Predosa (BO), Italy
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Suzhou Bimeng Technology Co., Ltd.
China (CN)
Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, China
Represented by
Krzysztof Breguła
Prior art cited (6)
front view of remote control
XT2 868 MHz SLH LR · Applicant catalogues dated 2015-2022
black version of front view of remote control
XT2 868 MHz SLH LR · Applicant catalogues dated 2015-2022
front view of remote control
XT4 868 MHz SLH LR · Applicant catalogues dated 2015-2022
black version of front view of remote control
XT4 868 MHz SLH LR · Applicant catalogues dated 2015-2022
images allegedly taken during trade fairs between 2009 and 2018
trade fair images
undated advertising brochure for remote control
XT2 868 MHz SLH LR · advertising brochure
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested remote-control design lacked novelty because its earlier XT2 and XT4 remote controls had been disclosed before the filing date and were identical apart from immaterial details.
- ›The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
- ›The Division accepted the applicant's catalogues and invoices as evidence that D1-D4 had been disclosed, but rejected the undated trade-fair images, side and rear images, and brochure as valid disclosure evidence.
- ›The Division found the prior designs were not identical because the contested design included additional undisclosed lateral and rear views, and D3/D4 also differed in visible front-dot arrangements and raised points.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected as unfounded under Article 25(1)(b) EUDR, and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed representation costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberDimitrios ANDRIANOPOULOS
- MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000131484 vs Junxian Wei | 2026-05-20 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000127957 vs Suzhou Bimeng Technology Co., Ltd. | 2025-05-28 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000126456 vs Shenzhen Weibo Technology Co., Ltd. | 2024-12-12 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000106799 vs ADS LESZEK KOWALIK, BARTŁOMIEJ WŁODARCZYK SPÓŁKA CYWILNA | 2020-04-06 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000106800 vs ADS LESZEK KOWALIK, BARTŁOMIEJ WŁODARCZYK SPÓŁKA CYWILNA | 2020-04-06 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000130850 vs Michael AMARA | 2026-04-23 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 5 |
| 000131224 vs Shenzhen Ruixin Fengshuo Electronic Co., Ltd | 2026-03-06 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 5 |
| 000130970 vs Liu yanqiong | 2026-02-26 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 5 |