DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002987396-0007

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-03-08

000102099

Contested design: 002987396-0007

CDR

Outcome

Application inadmissible

The invalidity application is rejected as inadmissible, and the invalidity fee will not be refunded.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected as inadmissible. The fee for the application for a declaration of invalidity will not be refunded.

CostsNo costs order

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Ningbo Klite Electric Manufacture Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

1702 East Air Building, 796 East Zhongshan Road, Ningbo, People’s Republic of China

Holder · RCD owner

Liquidleds Lighting Corpvia PDF extraction

Taiwan (TW)

Suite A2, 9F., No 333, Sec 2, Dunhua S. RD., Da-an District, 10669 Taipei City, Taiwán

Legal grounds invoked

Article 77Article 28(1)(c)Article 30(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity of RCD No 002987396-0007 under Article 25(1)(b) CDR.
  • The holder did not file observations; the decision instead focused on whether the applicant was properly represented before the Office.
  • The Division found the applicant, as a non-EU legal person, failed to remedy deficiencies proving entitlement to employee representation and compliance with Article 77 CDR.
  • The invalidity application was rejected as inadmissible, and the application fee was not refunded.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberGaile SAKALAITÉ
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
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 ↗

Locarno classes

26.04

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000106699

vs Shenzhen Juku Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.

2020-05-19Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000104419

vs Lukas Staffen

2019-11-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000102399

vs INTAV S.R.L.

2019-08-09Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000101440

vs KARE Design GmbH

2019-07-09Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000104899

vs Daxtor ApS

2019-05-22Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000103059

vs ZHEJIANG CHINA-BEST IMPORT & EXPORT CO.,LTD

2019-05-20Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000011221

vs HANGZHOU CHENGYUE ELECTRON& ELECTRIC CO.., LTD.

2019-02-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000011220

vs HANGZHOU CHENGYUE ELECTRON& ELECTRIC CO.., LTD.

2019-02-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268