DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008040950-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-04-30

000114422

Contested design: 008040950-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 008040950-0001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Shenzhen Yuanwei Beixin Lighting Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

607, Biwan Building, No. 1, Biwan Road East, Haibin New Village, Gushu Community, Xixiang Street, Baoan District, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China

Holder · RCD owner

Shenzhen Tengyue E-Commerce Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

F/2, No. 24, Lane 9, Jianshe Rd., Pinghu Sub-dist., Longgang Dist., Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Eight amazon.de sock offers/designs allegedly identical to the contested design, including four in different colours

amazon.de

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on eight earlier amazon.de sock offers allegedly disclosed before the RCD filing date.
  • The applicant argued that colours, materials and attached brands or labels in the prior products should be disregarded when comparing the prior designs with the contested design.
  • The Division held that URLs, product excerpts and images without fuller supporting evidence did not solidly prove public disclosure of the earlier designs under Article 7 CDR.
  • Because prior disclosure was not proven, the Division did not assess novelty or individual character further and rejected the invalidity application as unfounded.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI

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

02.04

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000132104

vs Shenzhen Damai Network Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-05-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)027
000127579

vs VICTORIA CARLOTA TERCEÑO JIMENEZ

2026-04-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)027
000131324

vs Song Li

2026-03-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)027
000130769

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)027
000130811

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)027
000130812

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)027
000130815

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)027
000130814

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)027