DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008212914-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-09-16

000115483

Contested design: 008212914-0003

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant’s fixed costs of EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0082129140003 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

Xiaolong Yangvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Group 2, Songyuan Village, Nanwan Township, Hengdong County Hunan 421400, People’s Republic of China

Holder · RCD owner

Aimo Marking Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

28532, Rm. 105, 6 Baohua Rd., Hengqin New Area Zhuhai, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Ákos Süle

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureAnnex 1

Wayback Machine printout of the holder’s website showing cartridges identified as the 'Dymo Series'

http://web.archive.org/web/20180418125454/http://www.aimotech.com/index.html · Wayback Machine / www.aimotech.com · disclosed 2018-04-17

PatentD1

Chinese design patent for 'Ribbon carriage'

CN303329513S · Chinese Patent Office · disclosed 2015-08-12

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on a Wayback Machine capture of the holder’s website and Chinese design patent CN303329513S.
  • The applicant argued the contested cartridge design created the same overall impression as the earlier disclosures and should therefore be invalidated.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply.
  • The Division treated D1 as validly disclosed, found only minor differences between the designs, and held that the contested RCD lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b) CDR.
  • The application was upheld in full, the RCD was declared invalid, and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES

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

14.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000130850

vs Michael AMARA

2026-04-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)148
000131224

vs Shenzhen Ruixin Fengshuo Electronic Co., Ltd

2026-03-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)148
000130970

vs Liu yanqiong

2026-02-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)148
000131064

vs Jinfeng Min

2026-02-25REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)148
000130524

vs Liu yanqiong

2026-02-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)148
000129861

vs Liu yanqiong

2025-12-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)148
000130565

vs Yunzeng He

2025-12-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)148
000130564

vs Yunzeng He

2025-12-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)148