Invalidity · first instance · 2019-02-18
000102959
Contested design: 004056273-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld and the contested RCD is declared invalid.
Show verbatim operative text
The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 0040562730001 is declared invalid.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Tirol Limited
China (CN)
Rm 702, No. 7 North Bank Fortune Center, 315020 Ningbo, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
José Izquierdo Faces
Holder · RCD owner
Shen Zhen Qi Ni Si Er Dian Zi Shang Wu You Xian Gong Si
China (CN)
Shi Long Gang Qu Ban Tian Jie Dao Yong Xiang Lu 8 Xiang 5 Hao 1703 Shi, Shenzen, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
Chinese utility model registration for sunshade mesh for car side window
ZL 2017 2 0685416.0 · China · disclosed 2018-01-09
Screenshots of online sales orders for sunshade mesh / product T11724-L
Chinese online sales orders · disclosed 2015-06-02
Pro forma invoice for arc-shaped side sunshade mesh, product T11724
EXT076 · Extreme Car Ltd, Israel · disclosed 2015-04-03
Invoice for arc-shaped side sunshade mesh, product T11724
WYEXT3597 · Extreme Car Ltd, Israel · disclosed 2015-05-07
Amazon.com offer for product T11724-L
ASIN B01HECEJHQ · Amazon.com · disclosed 2016-05-18
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, arguing the same sunshade mesh had been marketed before 19/06/2017 and supporting that claim with utility-model, sales, invoice and Amazon evidence.
- ›Holder filed no observations and did not challenge disclosure, novelty or the applicant's evidence.
- ›The Division rejected the post-dated Chinese utility model publication as disclosure evidence by itself but accepted the dated sales orders, invoices, Amazon listing and corroborating images as proving earlier public availability.
- ›The designs were found identical apart from immaterial differences, so the Article 25(1)(b) and Article 5 ground succeeded; Article 6 did not need separate examination and the RCD was declared invalid.
Deciding panel
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
- MemberGaile SAKALAITE
- MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000124336 vs Radosław Pryba | 2026-05-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000129038 vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft | 2026-04-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000129077 vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft | 2026-04-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000128979 vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft | 2026-04-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000129039 vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft | 2026-04-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000129055 vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft | 2026-04-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000129075 vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft | 2026-04-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000129076 vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft | 2026-04-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |