DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005823184-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-05-19

000106699

Contested design: 005823184-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0058231840001 is rejected. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Zhongke Zhizao (Shenzhen) Research and Development Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Room 101, Unit 2, B Block, Hekan Industrial Park, Wuhe Road 41, Bantian Street, Longgang District, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Nan Li

Holder · RCD owner

Shenzhen Juku Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

1113, Building 2, No 1, Tongsheng Community Industrial Park Road, Dalang Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD⚠ rejected as evidence

bedside lamps, night-lights [lamps] and alarm clocks

RCD No 0058191410001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-11-13

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 7Article 25(1)(d)Article 10

Argument summary

  • The applicant claimed the contested night-light design lacked novelty and individual character over its own earlier RCD because the overall shape and arrangement of features were essentially the same.
  • The holder argued the invalidity claim was inadequately reasoned and that the applicant's cited design could not qualify as prior art under the applicable disclosure rules.
  • The Division found the applicant's cited RCD was published on 13/11/2018, the same day the contested design was filed, so it was not disclosed before the relevant date under Article 7 CDR.
  • The Article 25(1)(d) ground was inadmissible because the applicant never provided supporting facts, evidence, or arguments after being invited to remedy the deficiency.
  • The application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder's representation costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO

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

26.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000104419

vs Lukas Staffen

2019-11-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000102399

vs INTAV S.R.L.

2019-08-09Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000101440

vs KARE Design GmbH

2019-07-09Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000104899

vs Daxtor ApS

2019-05-22Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000103059

vs ZHEJIANG CHINA-BEST IMPORT & EXPORT CO.,LTD

2019-05-20Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000102099

vs LIQUIDLEDS LIGHTING CORP

2019-03-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000011221

vs HANGZHOU CHENGYUE ELECTRON& ELECTRIC CO.., LTD.

2019-02-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000011220

vs HANGZHOU CHENGYUE ELECTRON& ELECTRIC CO.., LTD.

2019-02-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268