DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008043228-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-07-27

000114489

Contested design: 008043228-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear 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 0080432280001 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

IWUC Sp. z O.O.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul Kłobucka 8B, lok. 28, 02-699 Warszawa, Poland

Represented by

Tomasz Marcin Kos

Holder · RCD owner

Hangzhou XiangHui International Trading Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Room 612, No. 100, Changhe Road, Changehe street Binjiang District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (3)

Registered RCD1

socks (packagings for -), socks (set of -) / Pizza Socks Box

RCD No 0045069470001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-01-15

Web disclosure2⚠ rejected as evidence

'RAINBOWSOCKS' mobile-app screenshots claimed to show applicant's Instagram posts for Pizza Socks

claimed Instagram account 'RAINBOWSOCKS'

Web disclosure3⚠ rejected as evidence

'SOCKS PLACE' mobile-app screenshots claimed to show applicant's Facebook posts for Pizza Socks

claimed Facebook account 'SOCKS PLACE'

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5Article 7Article 25(1)(d)Article 25(3)

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested Pizza Socks design lacked novelty and conflicted with its earlier Pizza Socks Box disclosures and RCD No 0045069470001.
  • Holder filed no observations in reply.
  • The Division found Article 25(1)(d) inapplicable because the earlier RCD had been published before the contested filing date and was no longer owned by the applicant.
  • The mobile-app screenshots did not prove disclosure under Article 7, and the earlier registered design was not identical to the contested design in more than immaterial details.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN

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

02.0409.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000126496

vs Jiangmen Xinhui Zhenghua Ironware Co., Ltd.

2025-03-07Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)099
000111223

vs VAPESOL-FÁBRICA DE COMPONENTES PARA CALÇADO, UNIPESSOAL, LDA

2022-10-12Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)029
000114705

vs Albert Ungrad

2022-03-17Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)099
000103859

vs PHOENIX IND SA

2019-07-26Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)099
000129422

vs Suizhou Shenghe Trading Co., Ltd.

2025-10-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)09, 028
000123314

vs XINMING SHOES MATERIAL CO.LTD

2025-12-23Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)027
000127595

vs Shenzhen Beipengxing Technology Co., Ltd

2025-04-15Art 25(1)(b)097
000123916

vs Crocs, Inc.

2024-11-18Art 25(1)(b)027