Invalidity · first instance · 2019-11-18
000104599
Contested design: 005172046-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld; Registered Community design No 005172046-0001 is declared invalid; 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 005172046-0001 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
Brügglivia PDF extraction
Switzerland (CH)
Hofstr. 5, 8590 Romanshorn, Switzerland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Ningbo Sincere Holding Group Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
6F, Kaifeng Bd. No.762, Zhongxing Rd., Yinzhou District, Ningbo 315041, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (9)
animal cage
RCD No 000441266-0001 · disclosed 2006-01-31
animal cage
RCD No 000441266-0002 · disclosed 2006-01-31
animal cage
RCD No 000441266-0003 · disclosed 2006-01-31
animal cage
RCD No 000441266-0004 · disclosed 2006-01-31
animal cage
RCD No 000565015-0001 · disclosed 2006-09-05
animal cage
RCD No 000565015-0002 · disclosed 2006-09-05
animal cage
RCD No 000565015-0003 · disclosed 2006-09-05
animal cage
RCD No 000565015-0004 · disclosed 2006-09-05
animal cage
RCD No 0002980276-0001 · disclosed 2016-02-18
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character over nine earlier RCDs for animal cages.
- ›The holder disputed substantiation of the earlier designs and argued standard technical features and design differences created a different overall impression.
- ›The Division found the earlier RCDs properly disclosed, the informed user attentive, and the designer's freedom broadly constrained only in part by product requirements.
- ›Despite some differences in the top, side panels and lock, the shared overall construction produced the same overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The invalidity application was upheld, the contested RCD was declared invalid, and costs were awarded against the holder.
Deciding panel
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129301 vs Yu Bao | 2026-01-23 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 8 |
| 000129536 vs WENJIU YANG | 2025-10-28 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 8 |
| 000129724 vs Shenzhen Xianluo Technology Co., Ltd. | 2025-10-20 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 8 |
| 000124016 vs EDIESI | 2024-09-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 8 |
| 000124035 vs EDIESI | 2024-09-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 8 |
| 000124036 vs EDIESI | 2024-09-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 8 |
| 000123279 vs Jure MARKIČ | 2024-05-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 8 |
| 000123434 vs Guangzhou ChongChong E-Commerce Co., Ltd. | 2024-04-30 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 8 |