DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004733293-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-11-19

000111424

Contested design: 004733293-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0047332930001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Ideavillage Products Corp.via PDF extraction

United States (US)

155 Route 46 West, Wayne NJ 07470, United States of America

Represented by

A.A. Thornton & Co.

Holder · RCD owner

Haifu Chenvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Shuidou Fuhao Xincun, Longhua New District, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Isabelle Bertaux

Prior art cited (5)

Web disclosureAnnex 2, Exhibit 1

Egglettes egg cooking device

ASIN B07 7XM NHW1 · Amazon.com · disclosed 2017-12-01

Web disclosureAnnex 2, Exhibit 5

Egglettes egg cooking device video stills

YouTube · disclosed 2017-12-22

Web disclosureAnnex 2, Exhibit 6

Egglettes egg cooking device video stills

YouTube · disclosed 2018-02-05

Web disclosureAnnex 2, Exhibit 7

Egglettes egg cooking device video stills

YouTube · disclosed 2018-02-05

Web disclosureAnnex 2, Exhibit 8

Egglettes egg cooking device video stills

YouTube · disclosed 2018-02-13

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested egg cooker design lacked novelty and individual character because its Egglettes design had already been disclosed online and marketed before the filing date.
  • The holder filed no observations and did not rebut the applicant’s evidence of prior disclosure.
  • The Division accepted the Amazon and YouTube evidence as prior public disclosure and found only minor lid differences that did not change the overall impression on the informed user.
  • The application was upheld because the contested RCD lacked individual character over the prior Egglettes design, so the RCD was declared invalid and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE

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

07.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131632

vs DETECTALIA EUROPE, S.L.U.

2026-05-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000129741

vs 2W ORGANIC

2026-05-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131788

vs Liu Xiaoxia

2026-05-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131628

vs Shenzhen Changhe Technology Co., Ltd

2026-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131704

vs Shenzhen Changhe Technology Co., Ltd

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131745

vs Huan Wang

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000130924

vs SOHAI HOUSEWARES CO.,LTD.

2026-04-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131546

vs Foshan Changyuansheng Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078