DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008188221-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-04-30

000114461

Contested design: 008188221-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's fixed costs of EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0081882210001 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 Fengxinsheng Trading Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

108, Shenda Building, Hedong Industrial Zone, 49 District, Fanshen Community, Xin’an Street, Bao’an 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

seven prior tent pole designs allegedly offered on amazon.de between 31/12/2015 and 24/03/2019

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 seven allegedly identical prior tent-pole designs disclosed on amazon.de before the RCD filing date.
  • Its evidence was limited to internet addresses, images, and quoted product names, descriptions, ASIN codes, and listing dates; no substantive holder counter-arguments are recorded in the decision text.
  • The Division held that URLs alone, without full printouts or screenshots reliably linking the designs to the claimed publication dates, were insufficient to prove disclosure under Article 7 CDR.
  • Because prior disclosure was not established, the application failed and was rejected as unfounded, with costs awarded against the applicant.

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

21.04

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131885

vs Zhenkai Cui

2026-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000129622

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000129681

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000126976

vs Dohány Kft.

2026-04-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000131547

vs Brandworl Management Co., Limited

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000131507

vs Shenzhen Chenyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-31REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000130128

vs joboo GmbH

2026-02-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000130086

vs CROSS BORDEP (HK) CO., LIMITED

2026-02-02REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217