Invalidity · first instance · 2021-12-20
000116286
Contested design: 006813978-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity 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 0068139780001 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
Canhui Xievia PDF extraction
China (CN)
1402, Building 6, Jiahe Mingyuan, Fengchun Road, Xiangqiao District, Chaozhou City, Guangdong Province, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Yu Cheng Linvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
No. 1363, Caohu, Sandun Village, Nanri Town, Xiuyu District, Putian City, Fujian Province, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
double-layered lunch box
RCD No 007008115-0003 · EUIPO Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2019-10-18
double-layered lunch box
Chinese design patent application No 201930470105.7 · China · disclosed 2019-08-28
double-layered lunch box
Chinese design patent application No 201930355013.4 · China · disclosed 2019-07-05
screenshots of online shop and lunch-box order information
www.work.1688.com · website screenshots
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on earlier RCD No 007008115-0003, related Chinese design applications, and alleged bad faith based on prior dealings.
- ›The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
- ›The Division held bad faith is not an available invalidity ground under Article 25(1) CDR and treated that part of the application as inadmissible.
- ›It found the applicant had not proved prior disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR because the cited RCD was published after the contested filing date and the remaining patent and internet evidence was insufficient or unverifiable.
- ›The application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder’s representation costs fixed at EUR 400.
Deciding panel
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129182 vs Guangzhou L-TEK Enterprise Co.,Ltd | 2025-09-25 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000120871 vs Chuang-Kang Machinery Technology Co., Ltd | 2025-01-16 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000122014 vs EDIESI SL | 2023-09-07 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000118726 vs DAKA RESEARCH INC. | 2023-04-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000119513 vs Weiming Li | 2023-04-14 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000118241 vs Noi srl | 2023-01-25 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000116574 vs Horizons Group (London) Limited | 2022-11-16 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000118157 vs Qing Wang | 2022-11-09 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |