DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006887691-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-08-17

000110561

Contested design: 006887691-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the registered Community design is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. se estima la solicitud de nulidad. 2. se - declara nulo el modelo comunitario registrado n.º 006887691. 3. la titular sufrague las costas de la solicitante, cuantificadas en 750 EUR.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Dispenssing Technologies B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Grasbeemd 1, 5705 DE Helmond, Países Bajos

Represented by

Arnold & Siedsma

Holder · RCD owner

Shenzhen Guanbao Technology Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

914 International Cultural Building, Shennan Zhong Road, Futian Street, Futian Distrito de Futian, Shenzhen, República Popular China

Represented by

Süle Law Firm

Ákos Süle

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

dosing head

RCD No 003142009 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-06-07

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on its earlier registered Community design for a dosing head disclosed before the contested filing date.
  • It argued that the spray head was effectively identical and that the bottle body was commonplace, so the contested design copied the earlier overall appearance.
  • The holder filed no response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the earlier RCD through its publication in the Community Designs Bulletin and compared the designs as a whole, including the bottle body shown in the earlier registration.
  • It found the differences minor and held that the contested design created the same overall impression on the informed user, so it lacked individual character and was declared invalid.

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

09.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131325

vs HaoJun Zhu

2026-05-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000131965

vs Jiaxing Xiaotian Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-05-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130985

vs Suzhou Hongmao Import & Export Trade Co.,Ltd

2026-03-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130944

vs Shenzhen Tajinxuan Trading Co.,Ltd.

2026-02-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130968

vs Shenzhen Zhimei Chuangke E-commerce Co., Ltd.

2026-02-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000129539

vs MOHAMAR JAMOU

2026-01-14REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130088

vs Mindful eCom OÜ

2025-12-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000129281

vs VERONIKI ECOGRUP SRL

2025-11-04REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098