DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007764121-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-06-21

000114683

Contested design: 007764121-0003

CDR

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 0077641210003 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

Comerado GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Chrieschwitzer Str. 56, 08525 Plauen, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Li Ping Kang

China (CN)

No.1, Fuhua Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Dimitris Morides

Prior art cited (4)

PatentAnnex 1⚠ rejected as evidence

Chinese design patent for the prior insect repellent design

CN 303807126 S · Chinese design patent translation

Catalog⚠ rejected as evidence

Igreen catalogue emailed on 06/10/2016 showing a green version of the prior design

email with Igreen catalogue · disclosed 2016-10-06

Web disclosureAnnex 2⚠ rejected as evidence

Website images of the green version of the prior design

https://www.cn-igreen.com · cn-igreen.com · disclosed 2018-05-04

PublicationAnnex 4⚠ rejected as evidence

Haus und Garten article depicting the green version of the product

Haus und Garten · disclosed 2019-09-03

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on Chinese design patent CN 303807126 S and additional catalogue, website and magazine materials showing the same product.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply.
  • The Division found that none of the submitted materials sufficiently proved prior disclosure under Article 7 CDR because the patent translation lacked publication data, the email and catalogue were unreliable, the website was inaccessible, and the article was undated.
  • Without proven disclosure, novelty and individual character could not be assessed, so the invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to bear costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • 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

22.06

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000104379

vs Zakłady Mechaniczne "TARNÓW" S.A.

2020-02-06Art 25(1)(b)227
000127915

vs SHEN ZHEN MIN DUN SAFE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD

2026-02-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)225
000130022

vs ChunRun Zhou

2025-11-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)225
000127201

vs CarpFuture

2025-10-14REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)225
000126156

vs MARTOM

2025-06-10Art 25(1)(b)225
000124998

vs EVOLUTION INTERNATIONAL S.R.L.

2024-08-14REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)225
000119298

vs SNIPERMECHANICS LTD

2023-01-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)225
000118041

vs Weihai hunthouse fishing tackle Co,.Ltd

2022-09-20REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)225