DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008521330-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-01-14

000116466

Contested design: 008521330-0001

CDR

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 008521330-0001 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

Yongkang Dingduo Industry and Trade Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

No. 26, Zhengtong Road, Lieqiao Village, Xicheng Street, Yongkang City, Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China

Represented by

Krzysztof Breguła

Holder · RCD owner

Guangzhou Xinran Network Technology Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

(Rm AQ307) Zijian House,3/F, Bldg A., Chuangyi Park, Guangdongtianjian Square, No.283, Tongsha Rd., Tonghe St., Baiyun Dist., Guangzhou, People's Republic of China

Represented by

Isabelle Bertaux

Prior art cited (3)

National designEvidence 2⚠ rejected as evidence

Chinese design for hoops

Chinese design No 202030206070.9 · Chinese Patent Office

Web disclosureEvidence 1⚠ rejected as evidence

Amazon listing for a hoop design relied on to show prior disclosure

ASIN B08PQPS28K · Amazon · disclosed 2020-12-05

Web disclosureEvidence 1.1⚠ rejected as evidence

Undated online listing for a hoop design relied on to show prior disclosure

Alibaba

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on Chinese design No 202030206070.9 and online listings said to disclose the same hoop earlier.
  • Holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found the applicant had not proved a reliable disclosure event because the patent document lacked publication proof and the internet extracts had unclear source, date, or matching webpage content.
  • Because disclosure under Article 7 CDR was not established, the Office did not assess novelty or individual character further and rejected the application as unfounded.

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

21.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000128896

vs Sc Pitikot Store Srl

2025-08-18Art 25(1)(b)217
000124438

vs АУТДОР ПЛЕЙ

2025-04-03Art 25(1)(b)217
000126927

vs Jiujiang Storm E-Commerce Co., Ltd.

2025-03-25Art 25(1)(b)217
000121617

vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o.

2024-05-29Art 25(1)(b)217
000121616

vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o.

2024-05-29Art 25(1)(b)217
000121615

vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o.

2024-05-10Art 25(1)(b)217
000114244

vs UTILIS

2024-01-09Art 25(1)(b)217
000121427

vs Jinhua Baiwei Plastic Products Co., Ltd.

2023-11-15Art 25(1)(b)217