DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008554240-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-01-04

000115973

Contested design: 008554240-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 008554240-0001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

ShenZhen Baizezhuo technology Co.,Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

201, building 1, Dezhong e-commerce Industrial Park, 7 Lipu Street, Dafapu Community, Bantian Street, Longgang District, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China

Holder · RCD owner

Shanghai Zunhong Trading Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Room 795, No.133 Dongzheng Road, Huinan Town, Pudong New Area, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Isabelle Bertaux

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureD1A

Amazon offer for the Lictin Baby Sleeping Bag, a baby sleeping sack with a curved zip fastener

ASIN B08TWPNG5B · Amazon UK · disclosed 2021-02-19

Web disclosureD1B

Enlarged thumbnail images of the Lictin Baby Sleeping Bag design

ASIN B08TWPNG5B · Amazon UK · disclosed 2021-02-19

Web disclosureD2

Amazon offer for the Chuilsuessy Baby Sommer Schlafsack baby sleeping bag

ASIN B094JSCQZ6 · Amazon Germany · disclosed 2021-05-09

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 6(1)Article 7

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over three earlier baby sleeping bag disclosures on Amazon.
  • Holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted D1A, D1B and D2 as disclosed prior art under Article 7 CDR, but found the contested design created a different overall impression from each.
  • The invalidity application was rejected because the contested design retained individual character and was also considered new over the cited designs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENE

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
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

06.13

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000127357

vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG

2025-02-13Art 25(1)(b)067
000127356

vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG

2025-02-12Art 25(1)(b)067
000127340

vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG

2025-02-06Art 25(1)(b)067
000121199

vs MANUTTI BVBA

2024-05-16Art 25(1)(b)067
000120918

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120868

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120869

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120919

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067