DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007843305-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-06-14

000114667

Contested design: 007843305-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must bear the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 007843305-0001 is declared invalid. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Ningbo Ideamake Houseware Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

89# Fengqi Road, Panho Qiao Village, Yinzhou District, Ningbo, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Riccardo Ciullo

Holder · RCD owner

Chen Bing

China (CN)

No.12-3, Group 5, Changtai Village, Longdong Town, Xiangxiang, Hunan Province, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Isabelle Bertaux

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureAnnex 1

3-tier spice rack by Ningbo Ideamake Houseware

www.youtube.com · YouTube · disclosed 2019-05-21

Web disclosureAnnex 2⚠ rejected as evidence

Semlos Expandable Spice rack

ASIN B07YJS5N5M · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2019-09-09

Web disclosureAnnex 3⚠ rejected as evidence

extendable 3-tier spice rack

https://www.alibaba.com · Alibaba.com

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 6(1)Article 7(1)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on three online disclosures of spice-rack products.
  • The holder filed no observations or rebuttal evidence in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted Annex 1 as prior disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR, but found Annexes 2 and 3 insufficient evidence of disclosure.
  • The claimed technical-function exclusion for the expandable part was not proven, novelty failed, but the repeated three-tier design created the same overall impression.
  • The application was upheld because the contested design lacked individual character and the holder was ordered to pay costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ

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

06.04

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131404

vs Jiahe Lin

2026-05-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000128578

vs Washtower IP B.V.

2026-05-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000128655

vs Washtower IP B.V.

2026-05-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000128637

vs Washtower IP B.V.

2026-05-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000128735

vs OÜ REPSTON

2026-04-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000129372

vs Xuefang Cai

2026-03-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000130973

vs Højer Møbler A/S

2026-03-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000130975

vs Højer Møbler A/S

2026-03-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068