DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008313159-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-02-06

R1376/2025-3

Contested design: 008313159-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal upheld (reversal)

The contested decision is annulled, the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution, and each party bears its own costs and fees in the appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Annuls the contested decision; 2. Remits the case to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution; 3. Orders each party to bear its own costs and fees incurred in the appeal proceedings.

CostsEach party bears its own costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

GreatStartools Germany GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Brückenstraße 1, 51702 Bergneustadt, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Yiwu ThousandShores E-Commerce Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

9th Floor, Building No.3, YiWu International E-Commerce Town, 315 HongYun Road, ChengXi Street, 315 YiWu City, ZheJiang Province, China

Represented by

Joanna Dargiewicz

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureAnnex 1 / Enclosures 1-3

black kneeling pad, product number 56572

https://www.harborfreight.com/foam-kneeling-pad-56572.html · harborfreight.com

Web disclosureAnnex 1

blue kneeling pad, product number 56572

https://www.harborfreight.com/foam-kneeling-pad-56572.html · harborfreight.com

Web disclosureAnnex 2 / Enclosure 4

YouTube review of the Harbor Freight Kneeling Pad Item #56572

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=364Z6CuTu5s · YouTube · disclosed 2020-09-06

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing that the contested EUD lacked novelty and individual character because black and blue Harbor Freight kneeling pads had already been disclosed online before the filing date.
  • The design holder filed no observations either in the invalidity proceedings or in reply to the appeal.
  • The Board held that the original hyperlinks and partial screenshots were insufficient on their own, but admitted the supplementary appeal evidence because it complemented the same prior designs and was relevant to disclosure.
  • Assessing the website reviews, promotional material, and YouTube screenshots together, the Board found disclosure under Article 7(1) proven before filing, annulled the rejection, and remitted the case for substantive examination of validity.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • RapporteurC. Bartos
  • MemberA. González Fernández
  • RegistrarK. Zajfert

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 ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R1317/2025-32026-04-28Remitted (further prosecution)Art 25(1)(b)5
R1392/2025-32026-04-28Remitted (further prosecution)Art 25(1)(b)5
R1393/2025-32026-04-28Remitted (further prosecution)Art 25(1)(b)5
R1800/2025-32026-04-27Remitted (further prosecution)Art 25(1)(b)5
R1027/2025-32026-02-19Remitted (further prosecution)Art 25(1)(b)5
R2273/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)4
R0093/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)4
R2274/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)4