DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005615283-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-02-27

000105579

Contested design: 005615283-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld; the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 005615283-0001 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

Peter Dertsakyanvia PDF extraction

United States (US)

7700 Babcock Avenue, North Hollywood 91605, United States of America

Holder · RCD owner

Xuanxing Chen

China (CN)

Xiabaiqiao, Baiqiao Village, Yuelong Street, Ninghai County, Zhejiang Province, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure

Bristly sanitary toy for dogs

‘Bristly’ YouTube video / product disclosure · YouTube · disclosed 2018-07-01

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on prior disclosure of the same 'Bristly' dog sanitary toy on the internet and at trade events before 21 August 2018.
  • The holder argued the cited disclosures would not reasonably become known to specialised EU circles and that colour and top-and-bottom view differences gave the contested design novelty and a different overall impression.
  • The Division admitted the supplementary evidence and found the YouTube upload and SuperZoo exhibition were events that could reasonably become known to specialised circles under Article 7 CDR.
  • It rejected the novelty claim because colour differences were not immaterial, but found no different overall impression for individual character and declared the RCD invalid in full.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI

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

23.0230.99

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000132264

vs SHANDONG QIYUE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD

2026-05-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000131884

vs Zhaoqing Mikasi Home Hardware Co., LTD

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000129301

vs Yu Bao

2026-01-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000130601

vs Zhou Canbin

2026-01-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000129536

vs WENJIU YANG

2025-10-28REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000129724

vs Shenzhen Xianluo Technology Co., Ltd.

2025-10-20REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000127275

vs GRZEGORZ PIĄTEK PHU "TOP SERVIS"

2025-09-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000128177

vs DECATHLON

2025-08-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238