DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008238281-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-11-04

000115786

Contested design: 008238281-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 008238281-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

PTM Guard, SIAvia PDF extraction

LV

Kārļa Ulmaņa gatve 2A, 1004 Rīga, Latvia

Represented by

Olga Vahatova

Holder · RCD owner

Ningbo Yinzhou Harbour Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

No. 16, Panlong Road, Wuxiang Town, Yinzhou District, Zhejiang Province, Ningbo City, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (8)

Registered RCDD1

RCD 001584731-0001

Registered RCDD2

RCD 001584731-0002

Web disclosureD3

Acupressure Mat, Field of Flowers with Travel Bag and Neck Pillow for Neck Pain

ASIN B07YSKSVKW · www.amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2020-02-18

Registered RCDD4

RCD 006781761-0001

Registered RCDD5

RCD 008039606-0001

Registered RCDD6

RCD 005242559-0001

Registered RCDD7

RCD 001552605-0003

Registered RCDD8

earlier design work allegedly protected under the Copyright Law of the Republic of Latvia

RCD 005242559-0001 · Copyright Law of the Republic of Latvia · disclosed 2018-04-20

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over earlier designs D1 to D7 and also invoked copyright-based unauthorized use via D8.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found Amazon evidence sufficient to show D3 was disclosed before the filing date and treated internet retail evidence as probative prior art.
  • Comparing D3 with the contested acupressure mat, the Division found the shared shape, layout, and flower-like spiked elements outweighed minor differences in thickness and edging.
  • The application was upheld under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6, so the contested design was declared invalid without examining the remaining grounds.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENE

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

24.99

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131246

vs Life Vac LLC

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000131089

vs Rongrong Gao

2026-04-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000128555

vs Juliane Hesse-Ilyas

2026-02-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000129035

vs OMNIOXY SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA

2025-09-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000127199

vs Xiamen Tuoke Trading Co., Ltd.

2025-03-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000125355

vs Shenzhen Sainuotong Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-10-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000125317

vs Life Vac LLC

2024-08-16REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000123775

vs Schunk Ingenieurkeramik GmbH

2024-07-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248