DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006079646-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-04-14

000109241

Contested design: 006079646-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's fixed costs of EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 006079646-0001 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

Wu Yongjinvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

No. 88, 4 Team, Tianmagou Village, Jinjia Town, Shehong County Sichuan Province, the People’s Republic of China

Represented by

A.BRE.MAR. S.R.L.

Holder · RCD owner

Beijing Tidebuy Technology Co. Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Room 201, Building 11, Beiyuan 5th Yard Block 5, Chaoyang District, Beijing, the People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Nan Li

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure

TrueLove Dog Harness

http://www.amazon.co.uk; ASIN B01N8RMBEP · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2017-01-09

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on an earlier dog harness design disclosed on Amazon before the RCD filing date.
  • The applicant relied on an Amazon.co.uk listing for the 'TrueLove Dog Harness' with ASIN B01N8RMBEP and a first-available date of 9 January 2017.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply.
  • The Division accepted the Amazon evidence as a prior public disclosure and found the compared harness designs created the same overall impression on the informed user.
  • The application was upheld, the contested RCD was declared invalid for lack of individual character, and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
  • 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

30.04

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129301

vs Yu Bao

2026-01-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
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
000124016

vs EDIESI

2024-09-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000124036

vs EDIESI

2024-09-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000124035

vs EDIESI

2024-09-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000123279

vs Jure MARKIČ

2024-05-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000123434

vs Guangzhou ChongChong E-Commerce Co., Ltd.

2024-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308