Invalidity · first instance · 2018-05-30
000010640
Contested design: 002967349-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holders must pay the applicant's fixed costs of EUR 750.
Show verbatim operative text
The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 002967349-0001 is declared invalid. The holders bear the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Shu Wei Hong
China (CN)
Bai Shu Village, no. 2, Jian Yang 641418, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Chaobin YU
China (CN)
No. 36 East Avenure, Gulou Dist., Fuzhou, Fujian 350013, People’s Republic of China
Prior art cited (8)
Keral 'Tieroutfit' unicorn costume
Amazon.de · Amazon.de · disclosed 2013-09-16
TELLOYSD 'Adulte Unisexe Animal Costume' unicorn costume
Amazon.fr · Amazon.fr · disclosed 2015-08-31
UBeauty 'Unisex-adult ... Unicorn Pajamas'
Amazon.com · Amazon.com · disclosed 2015-07-09
DAYAN 'New Pajamas ... Costume Adult ... Unicorn'
Amazon.com · Amazon.com · disclosed 2015-03-23
Review of 'DAYAN New Pyjamas' with product images
Amazon.com · Amazon.com · disclosed 2015-11-14
Post showing 'Unicorn onesie'
Facebook.com · Facebook.com · disclosed 2014-11-17
Post showing 'Unicorn onesie'
Facebook.com · Facebook.com · disclosed 2014-10-25
Post showing 'Unicorn onesie'
Facebook.com · Facebook.com · disclosed 2014-12-28
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, relying on earlier online disclosures of the same unicorn costume before the RCD filing date.
- ›The holders filed no observations and did not rebut disclosure, novelty, or the applicant's evidence.
- ›The Division found the Amazon and Facebook materials were solid evidence that the costume had been publicly disclosed before filing under Article 7 CDR.
- ›It considered the compared costumes identical apart from immaterial colour differences, so the contested design lacked novelty under Article 5 CDR.
- ›The application was upheld, the RCD was declared invalid, and the holders were ordered to pay EUR 750 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000132104 vs Shenzhen Damai Network Technology Co., Ltd. | 2026-05-21 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000127579 vs VICTORIA CARLOTA TERCEÑO JIMENEZ | 2026-04-15 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000131324 vs Song Li | 2026-03-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000130815 vs CYBROG PTE. LTD. | 2026-02-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000130769 vs CYBROG PTE. LTD. | 2026-02-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000130811 vs CYBROG PTE. LTD. | 2026-02-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000130812 vs CYBROG PTE. LTD. | 2026-02-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000130814 vs CYBROG PTE. LTD. | 2026-02-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |