DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004112050-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-09-16

000114246

Contested design: 004112050-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 004112050-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Shenzhen Huiyingtong Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

1802 Jiangnan Times Building, Banxuegang Avenue, Bantian Street, Longgang District, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China

Holder · RCD owner

Changsha Gaize Dian zi shang wu you xian gong si (Changsha Gaize E-commerce Ltd.)

China (CN)

Zuoju Jie Xiang 1 Hao 2 Men 701 Fang Kaifu District Wangluyuan Jiedao, Changsha Hunan Province 410000, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureD1

electric toothbrush case

ASIN B01MQVUOAU · Amazon.de · disclosed 2016-12-14

Web disclosureD2

electric Toothbrush Travel Case

ASIN B06XBKR51H · Amazon.de · disclosed 2017-02-27

Web disclosureD3

Drkao Travel Case

ASIN B06XQKGKCZ · Amazon.de · disclosed 2017-04-02

Web disclosureD4

Drkao Travel Case

ASIN B06XQ43KS1 · Amazon.de · disclosed 2017-04-02

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested toothbrush case lacked novelty and individual character over four Amazon disclosures predating the filing date.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply to the invalidity application or the applicant's disclosure evidence.
  • The Division accepted D2 as an online disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR and found the designer's freedom for toothbrush cases was not substantially limited.
  • Comparing the contested design with D2, the Division found the same overall impression on the informed user and declared the design invalid.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • 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

03.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131964

vs Shenzhen Debaisite Trading Co., Ltd.

2026-04-22REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000129304

vs APRIMONIA Ltd.

2026-03-25REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000130547

vs Rong Hua

2026-02-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000130887

vs Suqi Zhuang

2026-02-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000130221

vs WITTCHEN S.A.

2025-12-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000130241

vs WITTCHEN S.A.

2025-12-16REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000130204

vs WITTCHEN S.A.

2025-12-16REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000130142

vs Edita Avakian

2025-12-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038