DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005943602-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-02-05

000107804

Contested design: 005943602-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against RCD No 005943602-0002 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 005943602-0002 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Solazixvia PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

j.k. Ilinden, bl. 132, fl. 5, apt. 72, 1309 Sofia, Bulgaria

Represented by

Nikolay Ivanov

Holder · RCD owner

Shenzhen Huanmi Industrial Technology Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

Rm. 401, No. 9, 8 Lane Xinsan Community, Buji St., Longgang Dist., Shenzhen 518000, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Sonoff Basic/Sonoff Sample

YouTube · disclosed 2015-11-25

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 6Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over the earlier design identified as 'Sonoff Basic/Sonoff Sample', allegedly disclosed online on 25 November 2015.
  • To support disclosure, the applicant cited internet links to Google results, YouTube videos, blog and wiki posts, and Indiegogo pages, but filed no documentary evidence beyond the URLs.
  • The holder filed no substantive response and did not appoint a representative after the Office's deficiency notice.
  • The Division held that bare web addresses are not solid, objective proof of public disclosure under Article 7(1), because their content may change or disappear and the Office does not follow party-provided links.
  • Because prior disclosure was not proven, the invalidity grounds failed and the application was rejected in full, with costs 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

13.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129383

vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd.

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)137
000129363

vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd.

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)137
000131764

vs Dongguan Penghui New Energy Technology Co., Ltd

2026-03-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)137
000129921

vs SHENZHEN EASTKING TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD

2026-03-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)137
000131186

vs Electronic Way Technology Co.,Ltd

2026-03-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)137
000128636

vs Guangzhou Quemou Trading Co., Ltd.

2026-02-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)137
000128598

vs Guangzhou Quemou Trading Co., Ltd.

2026-02-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)137
000129221

vs Shenzhen Guangtuo Da Lighting Co., LTD

2026-01-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)137