DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004361962-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-12-10

000102019

Contested design: 004361962-0002

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld; the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant’s costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 004361962-0002 is declared invalid. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Yangyang Wang

China (CN)

Group 9, Shixia Village, Chengguan Town, Yanshi City, Henan Province, People’s Republic of China

Holder · RCD owner

Yuxian Yu

China (CN)

No.319, Hubin east Road, Siming District, Xiamen City, Fujiang Province, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (4)

National designD1

Chinese design patent for toys (magnetic puzzle blocks)

XCN 301418895 S · Chinese design patent publication · disclosed 2010-12-22

Utility modelD2

Chinese utility model for a magnetic puzzle learning box

CN 201922751 U · Chinese utility model registration · disclosed 2011-08-10

Web disclosureD3

Clothin 'Wooden Writing Board Magnetic Jigsaw…' product listing

https://www.amazon.co.uk · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2016-12-19

Web disclosureD4

MMBOX 'Magnetic Puzzle Jigsaw Drawing Board Game…' product listing

https://www.amazon.co.uk · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2017-08-02

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 7

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(b) CDR, arguing the contested box design lacked novelty and individual character over D1, D2, and Amazon disclosures D3 and D4.
  • Holder filed no observations in reply.
  • The Division accepted D1 as disclosed before the filing date and considered its Chinese publication sufficient evidence of disclosure to specialised circles in the EU.
  • Comparing the line drawings, the Division found the contested RCD identical to D1 apart from an immaterial difference in the stick ends, so novelty was lacking and the RCD was invalidated.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

03.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131964

vs Shenzhen Debaisite Trading Co., Ltd.

2026-04-22REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000129304

vs APRIMONIA Ltd.

2026-03-25REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000130547

vs Rong Hua

2026-02-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000130887

vs Suqi Zhuang

2026-02-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000130221

vs WITTCHEN S.A.

2025-12-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000130241

vs WITTCHEN S.A.

2025-12-16REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000130204

vs WITTCHEN S.A.

2025-12-16REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000130142

vs Edita Avakian

2025-12-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038