Invalidity · first instance · 2022-02-07
000115470
Contested design: 005618493-0001
Outcome
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 005618493-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
MiaCara GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Am Behälterberg 1, 91074 Herzogenaurach, Germany
Holder · RCD owner
Charley Chau Limited
United Kingdom (GB)
34 Alcester Road, Sale, Cheshire East M33 3QP, United Kingdom
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
'Velvet Hyppo' dog bed for animals
Facebook Velvet Hyppo account · Facebook · disclosed 2017-08-30
light-shade 'Velvet Hyppo' dog bed for animals
Instagram thevelvethippo account · Instagram · disclosed 2018-04-18
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on earlier Facebook and Instagram disclosures of the 'Velvet Hyppo' dog bed.
- ›The holder argued the prior disclosures were incomplete, not reasonably known in the EU, fell within the grace period, and in any event created a different overall impression.
- ›The Division rejected the Facebook screenshot and the holder's self-disclosure as insufficiently precise, but accepted the Instagram evidence, especially Annex 4, as prior art disclosed online before filing.
- ›Given the designer's broad freedom, the shared hexagonal shape, height and cushioning dominated the minor differences, so the contested design lacked individual character.
- ›The invalidity application was upheld, the contested design was declared invalid, and costs were awarded against the holder.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
- MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENE
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129301 vs Yu Bao | 2026-01-23 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 8 |
| 000129536 vs WENJIU YANG | 2025-10-28 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 8 |
| 000129724 vs Shenzhen Xianluo Technology Co., Ltd. | 2025-10-20 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 8 |
| 000124035 vs EDIESI | 2024-09-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 8 |
| 000124036 vs EDIESI | 2024-09-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 8 |
| 000124016 vs EDIESI | 2024-09-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 8 |
| 000123279 vs Jure MARKIČ | 2024-05-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 8 |
| 000123434 vs Guangzhou ChongChong E-Commerce Co., Ltd. | 2024-04-30 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 8 |