DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007456025-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-06-30

000114630

Contested design: 007456025-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0074560250001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Boon Rawd Brewery Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

TH

No. 999, Samsen Road, Thanon Nakomchaisri Sub-district, Dusit District, Bangkok 10300, Thailand

Represented by

FRKELLY

Holder · RCD owner

Yunnan Xiangkeng Trading Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Room 1101, Unit 2, Building 8, Block A2, Jindun Junyuan, Chenggong District, Kunming City, Yunnan Province, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Marcella Clarke

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosure

Singha Beer beverage can design shown in an archived drinks industry article

https://web.archive.org/web/20170402143844/https://www.thedrinksreport.com/news/2017/17060-singha-beer-available-in-cans-in-the-United Kingdom.html · Internet Archive / thedrinksreport.com · disclosed 2017-04-02

Web disclosure

Singha Beer beverage can design shown in an online article about the United Kingdom can launch

https://www.asia-can.com/2568/news/singha-beer-celebrates-thai-new-year-United Kingdom-can-launch/ · asia-can.com · disclosed 2017-03-29

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character, relying on earlier online disclosures of a Singha Beer can design before the RCD filing date.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply.
  • The Division accepted the archived web pages as sufficient Article 7 disclosure evidence and found the compared can designs produced an extremely similar overall impression.
  • The application was upheld, the contested RCD was declared invalid in full, and costs were awarded against the holder.

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