DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008160816-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-09-16

000115627

Contested design: 008160816-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay 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 008160816-0001 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

Shenzhen Bosidi Technology Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Zone A,3/F, Bldg 4, Fuyuan 2nd Rd & Tangwei Ave Intersection, High-Tech Development Zone, Fuyong Street Baoan, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China

Holder · RCD owner

Shenzhen Qianyu Technology Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

910-2, Changfu Jinmao Bldg., South Shihua Rd., Fubao community,Fubao St., Futian Dist., Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCD

hair removal device

RCD No 007273172-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2019-12-04

National designAnnex 1

Japanese design corresponding to the earlier hair removal device design

JP1657417S · disclosed 2020-04-13

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(d) CDR based on earlier RCD No 007273172-0001 and Japanese design No JP1657417S, arguing the contested design was almost identical apart from functional buttons and a trade mark.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply.
  • The Division held Article 25(1)(d) CDR applies restrictively and requires the prior design to have been made available to the public only after the contested RCD's filing date.
  • Because both cited earlier designs had been published before 04/09/2020, they were not 'prior designs' for Article 25(1)(d) CDR, so the sole pleaded invalidity ground failed.
  • The application was rejected, with costs awarded in the operative part against the applicant.

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

28.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000119078

vs Sijie XU

2023-10-25Art 25(1)(d)287
000113143

vs Shenzhen Hongwang Nicemay Electric Co., Ltd

2021-08-26Art 25(1)(d)287
000125115

vs Mihua Li

2024-07-31285
000123998

vs Shenzhen First Century Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-05-16285
000122441

vs Piotr Malinowski

2024-05-15285
000120698

vs Guangdong Roman Technology Co., Ltd

2024-01-25285
000108601

vs Wahl Clipper Corporation

2023-07-31285
000120778

vs GUANGDONG HUANENGDA ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES CO.,LTD.

2023-07-17285