DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005397007-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-03-27

000106460

Contested design: 005397007-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against the contested RCD is rejected.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 005397007-0001 is rejected.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Wenzhou Liangsha Sanitary Ware Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

Building 3, No. 618, Haigong Avenue, Haicheng Street, Wenzhou Economic and Technological Development Zone, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, Peoples’ Republic of China

Holder · RCD owner

Hangzhou Frap E-commerce Co.,Ltd.

China (CN)

Room 22012, Yuejiang Business Center, No. 857 Xincheng Road, Puyan Sub-district, Binjiang District, Hangzhou City 310053, Peoples’ Republic of China

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureD1

GAPPO Pull Out Kitchen Sink Taps with Lead Free Drink Water Filter Function Brushed Nickel kitchen faucet

ASIN B072JMC2B2 · amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2017-06-02

Web disclosureD2

POIQIHY Water Filter Kitchen Swivel Faucet Antique Brass Dual Handle Mixer Tap Swivel Modern Tap Dual Spout Pull Kitchen Faucet

aliexpress.com · disclosed 2017-11-11

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the faucet design was not new over two earlier online faucet designs and later also tried to add an individual-character challenge.
  • Holder disputed disclosure and identity, arguing the screenshots were unreliable, undated in part, and too unclear to support comparison.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1 and D2 from Amazon and AliExpress evidence but held the later-added Article 6 ground inadmissible because it was raised after filing.
  • On novelty, it found the earlier faucets shared the same general concept but differed in hose arc, finishes and handle details, so the differences were not immaterial.
  • The application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberKelly BENNETT

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

23.01

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)235
000131884

vs Zhaoqing Mikasi Home Hardware Co., LTD

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)235
000130601

vs Zhou Canbin

2026-01-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)235
000127275

vs GRZEGORZ PIĄTEK PHU "TOP SERVIS"

2025-09-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)235
000128177

vs DECATHLON

2025-08-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)235
000126775

vs Ecomsoul Pro SRL

2025-07-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)235
0001267152025-07-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)235
000128196

vs Rafał Sowa

2025-07-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)235