DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008027908-0005

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-04-23

000114122

Contested design: 008027908-0005

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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 0080279080005 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

ShenZhen Transpet Technology Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Room 1305 Building C Huihai Square Longhua, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China

Represented by

David Evans

Holder · RCD owner

ChunRun Zhou

China (CN)

11102, No.1 Lvseyangang Homeland, No.9 Beisi Street, Yantian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, People's Republic of China

Represented by

Dimitris Morides

Prior art cited (1)

Patent

Chinese design patent for a dog bark response device, filed as application No 201730558109.1

CN 304653274 · Chinese design patent publication · disclosed 2018-05-29

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 based on earlier Chinese design patent CN 304653274, published before the RCD filing date.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply and left the invalidity application undefended.
  • The Division accepted the Chinese patent extract and translation as sufficient disclosure evidence under Article 7 CDR.
  • It found only minor differences between the designs and held that the contested design lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b) CDR.
  • The application was upheld, the RCD was declared invalid in full, and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN

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

30.99

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129301

vs Yu Bao

2026-01-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000129536

vs WENJIU YANG

2025-10-28REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000129724

vs Shenzhen Xianluo Technology Co., Ltd.

2025-10-20REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000124016

vs EDIESI

2024-09-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000124036

vs EDIESI

2024-09-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000124035

vs EDIESI

2024-09-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000123279

vs Jure MARKIČ

2024-05-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000123434

vs Guangzhou ChongChong E-Commerce Co., Ltd.

2024-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308