DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007959994-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-03-21

000116908

Contested design: 007959994-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application inadmissible

The invalidity application is rejected as inadmissible, and the application fee will not be refunded.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected as inadmissible. 2. The fee for the application for a declaration of invalidity will not be refunded.

CostsNo costs order

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Cihan Kösevia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Lützelsteiner Str.13, 80939 München, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Yingying Guo

China (CN)

Wenchang Street, No. 149 Nangang District, Haerbin city, Heilongjiang Province, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Metida

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

design shown on an Amazon webpage

https://www.amazon.de/dp/B07W3XN8LT?th=1; ASIN B07W3XN8LT · Amazon

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character under Article 25(1)(b) CDR, relying on an Amazon webpage as prior design evidence.
  • The holder did not file observations; the decision addresses only admissibility defects in the application.
  • The Division found the application lacked a representation of the earlier design and contained no reasoned statement of facts, evidence, and arguments.
  • After the applicant failed to cure the deficiencies within the time limit, the Division rejected the application as inadmissible and kept the fee non-refundable.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE

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

21.02

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)217
000129622

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000129681

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000126976

vs Dohány Kft.

2026-04-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000131547

vs Brandworl Management Co., Limited

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000131507

vs Shenzhen Chenyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-31REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000130128

vs joboo GmbH

2026-02-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000130086

vs CROSS BORDEP (HK) CO., LIMITED

2026-02-02REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217