Invalidity · first instance · 2021-04-06
000110901
Contested design: 006313086-0001
Outcome
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
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0063130860001 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
Juxiong Luvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
Room 405, No. 33 Dongfeng West Road, Liwan District, Guanzhou, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Shanghai ANGOO Stationery Gift Co.,Ltd.
China (CN)
Room 2407,No. 5616, CaoAn Road, Anting Town, Jiading District, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
Aineeba pencil case offered on Amazon
ASIN B07MB5PB5T · Amazon.com · disclosed 2019-02-20
EASTHILL medium capacity pencil case offered on Amazon
ASIN B07CCN592W · Amazon.com · disclosed 2018-06-04
Mokani pencil case offered on Amazon
ASIN B07MTBHVZX · Amazon.com · disclosed 2019-01-14
Samaz Pen Bag Pencil Case Large Capacity Canvas Pencil Bag Pouch Stationery Case Makeup Cosmetic Bag (Green)
ASIN B071RDB9HX · Amazon.com · disclosed 2017-04-20
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on four Amazon-disclosed pencil case designs predating the contested RCD.
- ›The holder said D1 to D3 were disclosed with its consent within the 12-month grace period and argued D4 differed in proportions, capacity and available colours.
- ›The Division accepted the holder’s grace-period evidence for D1 to D3 and assessed the claim only against D4, finding the Amazon screenshots sufficient to prove disclosure.
- ›Comparing the disclosed features, the Division found D4 identical to the contested RCD apart from immaterial details, so the design lacked novelty under Article 5(1)(b).
- ›The application was upheld in full, the RCD was declared invalid, and costs were awarded against the holder.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
- MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000131964 vs Shenzhen Debaisite Trading Co., Ltd. | 2026-04-22 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 8 |
| 000129304 vs APRIMONIA Ltd. | 2026-03-25 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 8 |
| 000130547 vs Rong Hua | 2026-02-23 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 8 |
| 000130887 vs Suqi Zhuang | 2026-02-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 8 |
| 000130221 vs WITTCHEN S.A. | 2025-12-17 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 8 |
| 000130241 vs WITTCHEN S.A. | 2025-12-16 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 8 |
| 000130204 vs WITTCHEN S.A. | 2025-12-16 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 8 |
| 000130142 vs Edita Avakian | 2025-12-03 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 8 |