DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008587489-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-01-05

000116447

Contested design: 008587489-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear 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 008587489-0001 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

premano GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Lerchenstr. 41, 73655 Plüderhausen, Germany

Represented by

Lexea Rechtsanwälte

Holder · RCD owner

Guixing KE

China (CN)

No. 88, Huifeng West Road, Yinzhou District, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315000, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Marinos Cleanthous

Prior art cited (2)

OtherAnnex 1⚠ rejected as evidence

Email dated 2020-09-07 showing a product identified as the "V-mandoline slicer".

Taizhou Woka Plastic Co., Ltd email · disclosed 2020-09-07

CatalogAnnex 2⚠ rejected as evidence

Catalogue extract depicting the "V-Blade Mandoline Slicer" prior design.

Taizhou WOKA Plastic Co., Ltd catalogue

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested vegetable slicer design lacked novelty and individual character because a similar product had been offered for sale before the filing date.
  • To prove prior disclosure, the applicant relied on a 2020 email image and an undated catalogue extract from Taizhou WOKA Plastic Co., Ltd.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found the evidence did not objectively prove when and under what circumstances the prior design was made available to the public under Article 7(1) CDR.
  • Because disclosure was not proven, the invalidity grounds under Article 25(1)(b) CDR failed and the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

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

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

07.04

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129182

vs Guangzhou L-TEK Enterprise Co.,Ltd

2025-09-25Art 25(1)(b)077
000120871

vs Chuang-Kang Machinery Technology Co., Ltd

2025-01-16Art 25(1)(b)077
000122014

vs EDIESI SL

2023-09-07Art 25(1)(b)077
000118726

vs DAKA RESEARCH INC.

2023-04-27Art 25(1)(b)077
000119513

vs Weiming Li

2023-04-14Art 25(1)(b)077
000118241

vs Noi srl

2023-01-25Art 25(1)(b)077
000116574

vs Horizons Group (London) Limited

2022-11-16Art 25(1)(b)077
000118157

vs Qing Wang

2022-11-09Art 25(1)(b)077