DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006610143-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-08-09

000114061

Contested design: 006610143-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0066101430001 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

Britney Crowellvia PDF extraction

United States (US)

19 remsen Place, West Babylon New York 11704, United States of America

Represented by

Ákos Süle

Holder · RCD owner

M & A Consulting Llc T/A Beautifully Warmvia PDF extraction

United States (US)

1841 Monument Dr. Virginia Beach VA 23464-8772, United States of America

Prior art cited (2)

PatentAnnex 1⚠ rejected as evidence

backless hat

US Design Patent No D891,734 S · United States patent database · disclosed 2020-08-04

Web disclosureAnnexes 3-7

backless hats under the 'CurlCap' brand shown on Instagram and Facebook

Instagram and Facebook · disclosed 2017-12-08

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, arguing the contested backless cap was identical to her earlier backless-hat design disclosed before the RCD filing date.
  • She relied on a later-granted US design patent and pre-filing Instagram and Facebook screenshots under the 'CurlCap' brand; the holder filed no observations.
  • The Division held the patent grant post-dated the RCD filing, but accepted the dated social-media posts as sufficiently clear public disclosures under Article 7(1) CDR.
  • Because the compared designs showed no perceptible differences in their essential features, the RCD was identical to the earlier design and lacked novelty, so it was invalidated.

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

02.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000132104

vs Shenzhen Damai Network Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-05-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000127579

vs VICTORIA CARLOTA TERCEÑO JIMENEZ

2026-04-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000131324

vs Song Li

2026-03-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130815

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130769

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130811

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130812

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130814

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028