000125137

• ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying primarily on earlier International Registration No DM/229 342 published before the claimed priority date.
• ›The holder argued the designs created a different overall impression and said a CNIPA assessment confirmed novelty; it also filed Chinese material and additional designs without substantiating relevance.
• ›The Division held the CNIPA assessment could not replace an autonomous EUIPO analysis and found the prior international design had been validly disclosed before the contested design's priority date.
• ›Given broad design freedom for electronic atomizing devices, the shared silhouette, front insert, mouthpiece and connector dominated; the cited differences were minor and did not alter the overall impression.
• ›The application was upheld under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4(1) and 6(1)(b) EUDR, and the holder was ordered to bear costs.

• MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
• MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
• MemberEmmanuel COLLIN

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