DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007456017-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-05-25

000113561

Contested design: 007456017-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested registered Community design No 007456017 is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. se estima la solicitud de nulidad. 2. se-declara nulo el modelo comunitario registrado n.º 007456017. 3. la titular sufrague las costas de la solicitante, cuantificadas en 750 EUR.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Rojo Bull GmbHvia PDF extraction

Austria (AT)

Am Brunnen 1, 5330 Fuschl am See, Austria

Represented by

Hogan Lovells

Holder · RCD owner

Xiangkeng Cao

China (CN)

n.º 42, Goutou New Village, Jinfeng Town, Changle City, Provincia Fujian, República Popular de China

Represented by

Marcella Clarke

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosureD1

beverage can design shown on japonshop.com

https://web.archive.org/web/20191115205706/https://www.japonshop.com/bebidas/red-bull-gold-krating-daeng-tailandia-250 · www.japonshop.com via Internet Archive · disclosed 2019-11-15

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested beverage-can design lacked individual character because prior can D1 was publicly disclosed on japonshop.com, archived on 2019-11-15, before the filing date.
  • Holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted the Internet Archive material as sufficient Article 7 disclosure evidence and found the relevant sector was beverage cans, with an attentive informed user.
  • Shared can shape, yellow-red-blue colour scheme, charging-bull imagery, and word placement dominated; Thai text and wording differences were too minor to change the overall impression.
  • The application was upheld under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b); the Division did not need to examine the additional ground under Article 25(1)(e).

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO

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

09.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131325

vs HaoJun Zhu

2026-05-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000131965

vs Jiaxing Xiaotian Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-05-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130985

vs Suzhou Hongmao Import & Export Trade Co.,Ltd

2026-03-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130944

vs Shenzhen Tajinxuan Trading Co.,Ltd.

2026-02-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130968

vs Shenzhen Zhimei Chuangke E-commerce Co., Ltd.

2026-02-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000129539

vs MOHAMAR JAMOU

2026-01-14REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130088

vs Mindful eCom OÜ

2025-12-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000129281

vs VERONIKI ECOGRUP SRL

2025-11-04REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098