DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004726511-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-09-13

000105761

Contested design: 004726511-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 004726511-0002 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Wild Boards Limited

United Kingdom (GB)

7 Lime Kiln Court, Mold, Flintshire, CH7 5NQ, United Kingdom

Holder · RCD owner

Hui Zengvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Room 402, Yuan Village New Village, Tianhe District, Guangzhou City 510000, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Alleged online disclosure of the earlier cube game design

amazon.com; youtube.com; gizmodo.com · amazon.com; youtube.com; gizmodo.com

Prior use⚠ rejected as evidence

Alleged prior sales of products of the same design predating the contested RCD

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and cited website links plus alleged earlier sales of the same cube game design.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply.
  • The Division held that bare web addresses and unsubmitted sales evidence do not prove prior disclosure with solid, objective evidence under Article 7 CDR.
  • Because prior disclosure of the earlier design was not proven, the invalidity application was rejected in full and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

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

21.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000109222

vs DELTA-SPORT Handelskontor GmbH

2020-02-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)218
000109203

vs DELTA-SPORT Handelskontor GmbH

2020-02-11Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)218
000105502

vs NIKE Innovate C.V.

2019-10-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)218
000104239

vs REPLIC HOCKEY SL

2019-08-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)218
000105219

vs CHROME CHERRY DESIGN STUDIO (PTY) LTD

2019-07-30Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)218
000011219

vs TCC Global N.V.

2018-12-03Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)218
000011052

vs Qizhi Chen

2018-08-28Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)218
000010565

vs Peter Lippert

2018-06-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)218