DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005947884-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-09-09

000110761

Contested design: 005947884-0002

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0059478840002 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Shenzhenshi Lvshishang Canyin Guanli Youxiangongsivia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Xinmaogongyu B135A Longhuaxinqu Minzhijiedao Minfenglu, Shenzhen Guangdong, People's Republic of China

Represented by

Ipside

Holder · RCD owner

Yuan Mafei

China (CN)

No.008, Shuishanwei Village, Yanggan Town, Suixi County, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China

Represented by

Isabelle Bertaux

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureD1

electrical pen for anti-ageing treatment

https://www.amazon.co.uk (ASIN B07GFCJ8FB) · amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2018-08-11

National designD2

cosmetic device design

Chinese Design application No 2016 30564246.1 · Chinese Design publication · disclosed 2017-05-31

National designD3

cosmetic device design

Chinese Design application No 2018 30068854.2 · Chinese Design publication · disclosed 2018-06-29

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over D1 to D3, and also invoked a trade-mark-based ground.
  • Holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1 to D3, found D1 not identical to the contested design, but held the common features created the same overall impression on the informed user.
  • Invalidity was granted under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6; the RCD was declared invalid and the holder was ordered to pay EUR 750 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA

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

28.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000130164

vs Moritz Neugebauer

2026-05-22REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000129241

vs Yi Wing Global Limited

2026-05-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000132044

vs Xucan XU

2026-05-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000131244

vs Shenzhen Lumei E-commerce Co., Ltd.

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000130964

vs Changde Yameixun Network Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-02-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000130541

vs Medintim SL

2025-12-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000128396

vs Koninklijke Philips N.V.

2025-12-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000128638

vs Xiaoyan Kang

2025-12-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288