DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002769299-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-07-19

000109221

Contested design: 002769299-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holders' costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0027692990001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holders’ costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Nextrend GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Weiherstraße 1, 65439 Flörsheim am Main, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Xiamen Axent Corporation Limited.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

No. 2 East Xiafei Rd, Haicang, Fujian, Xiamen, People's Republic of China

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCD

toilet lid

RCD No 0021678820002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2013-01-24

International designAnnex 5⚠ rejected as evidence

additional design excerpt submitted as a new invalidity basis

DM/0736405

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested toilet-lid design lacked individual character over earlier RCD No 0021678820002 and pointed to additional prior examples of lid shapes, openings, thicknesses, and knob positions.
  • The holders argued that broken-line features of the earlier design should be disregarded and that the contested design differed materially in its rear recess and cover, knob arrangement, and angular front shape.
  • The Division held that the earlier RCD was properly disclosed, but Annex 5 (DM/0736405) was an inadmissible new basis introduced too late in the proceedings.
  • The Division found broad designer freedom apart from fitting constraints and considered the contested design longer, thinner, and materially different in its rear structure, knob presentation, and decorative side lines.
  • The application was rejected because the contested RCD produced a different overall impression; the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in 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

23.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000125335

vs Digikor Oy

2025-02-11Art 25(1)(b)237
000121854

vs Zhenhua Sun

2024-02-26Art 25(1)(b)237
000120318

vs BIODOM EUROPE S.R.L.

2023-10-10Art 25(1)(b)237
000120199

vs William Huang

2023-05-30Art 25(1)(b)237
000116628

vs DCX POLSKA Sp. z o.o.

2023-01-13Art 25(1)(b)237
000118242

vs TAIZHOU WEIYE REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT CO.,LTD

2022-11-03Art 25(1)(b)237
000114601

vs fire friends GmbH & Co. KG

2022-03-23Art 25(1)(b)237
000114903

vs CERAMICA CIELO S.p.A.

2022-03-18Art 25(1)(b)237