Invalidity · first instance · 2018-11-13
000000005
Contested design: 001456347-0008
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holders must pay the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 350.
Show verbatim operative text
The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 001456347-0008 is declared invalid. The holders bear the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 350.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €350
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Julia Yu
United Kingdom (GB)
156 Bon Accord Street, Aberdeen, AB11 6TX, United Kingdom
Holder · RCD owner
Chaobin Yuvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
No. 36 East Avenue, Gulou Dist., Fuzhou, Fujian 350013, People's Republic of China
Prior art cited (9)
Très Chic Mailanda 'Womens Sleepwear/Pajama Pants'
Amazon.de · Amazon.de · disclosed 2016-09-18
Silver Lilly 'Unisex Adult Pajamas — Plush One Piece Cosplay Giraffe Animal Costume'
Amazon.com · Amazon.com · disclosed 2016-08-30
Review of 'Silver Lilly Adult Pajamas — Plush One Piece Cosplay Animal Costume Giraffe'
Amazon.com · Amazon.com · disclosed 2015-12-24
'Kigurumi Pajamas Giraffe Onesie …' listing
Lightinthebox.com · Lightinthebox.com · disclosed 2013-09-28
ROYAL WIND 'New Women's Adult Pajamas Ladies Unisex Fleece Animal Onesies Kigurumi Novelty Pyjamas Nightwear Costumes Halloween (Giraffe, Small)'
Amazon.co.uk · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2015-04-10
'Joe Boxer Junior's Fleece One-Piece Pajamas — Giraffe' listing
Kmart.com · Kmart.com · disclosed 2016-06-16
Facebook post showing the giraffe costume
Facebook.com · Facebook.com · disclosed 2016-01-05
Facebook post showing the product 'Giraffe pajama-suit'
Facebook.com · Facebook.com · disclosed 2015-11-02
Facebook post showing the product 'Giraffe pajama'
Facebook.com · Facebook.com · disclosed 2016-12-14
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested giraffe costume design lacked novelty and individual character because identical earlier designs had been disclosed online before the filing date.
- ›The holders filed no observations and submitted no facts or evidence to rebut the alleged prior disclosures.
- ›The Division found the submitted retail-site and social-media screenshots to be mutually corroborative and sufficient to prove public disclosure under Article 7 CDR.
- ›Comparing the disclosed costume with the contested RCD, the Division found them identical apart from immaterial colour-shade differences, so novelty was lacking under Article 5 CDR.
- ›The application was upheld, the RCD was declared invalid, and the holders were ordered to pay EUR 350 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 |