DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006387148-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-03-10

000116606

Contested design: 006387148-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld; Registered Community design No 006387148-0001 is declared invalid; the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

Se estima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad. Se declara nulo el dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado n.º 006387148-0001. Las costas sufragadas por la titular, fijadas en 750 EUR.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Tinnus Enterprises, LLCvia PDF extraction

United States (US)

3429 18th Street, Plano, Texas, Estados Unidos de América

Holder · RCD owner

Weijun CUIvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

No.32, Yuzhong, Yuzhong Village, Shuitun Town, Yicheng Country, Zhumadian, Henan, República Popular de China

Represented by

Süle Law Firm

Ákos Süle

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosure

Bunch O Balloons shown in all colour variations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9KAh-_paW8 · YouTube · disclosed 2016-09-27

Web disclosure

Multicolour Bunch O Balloons version shown in video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2RziwhjZGY · YouTube · disclosed 2016-06-29

Patent

Patent cited for the Bunch O Balloons product

EP 3 431 010 · European patent

Registered RCD

Earlier Bunch O Balloons design cited under Article 25(1)(d)

DMC 001431829-0007 · EUIPO Register · disclosed 2015-05-06

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 8(1)Article 25(1)(d)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity, alleging earlier Bunch O Balloons disclosures, lack of novelty and individual character, technical-function exclusivity, and conflict with its earlier rights.
  • Holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found the bad-faith/title complaints inadmissible, rejected Article 25(1)(d), and held the colour arrangement prevented total exclusion under Article 8(1).
  • It accepted the YouTube disclosure as prior art and found no different overall impression, so the contested design lacked individual character and was invalidated.

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
000131885

vs Zhenkai Cui

2026-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129622

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129681

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000126976

vs Dohány Kft.

2026-04-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131547

vs Brandworl Management Co., Limited

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131507

vs Shenzhen Chenyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-31REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130128

vs joboo GmbH

2026-02-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130086

vs CROSS BORDEP (HK) CO., LIMITED

2026-02-02REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218