DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008543797-0007

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-04-21

000116767

Contested design: 008543797-0007

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0085437970007 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

TecTake GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Tauberweg 41, 97999 Igersheim, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Chen Ji

China (CN)

3039, Floor 3, Xiangnanruifeng Garden No.22 Guimiao Road, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518000, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Süle Law Firm

Ákos Süle

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure

JR Knight Katzen Kratzbaum scratching post

ASIN B08PZ9C72C; https://www.amazon.de · Amazon.de · disclosed 2020-12-08

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, relying on Amazon screenshots showing an identical cat scratching post offered from 8 December 2020.
  • The holder was invited to respond but filed no observations challenging the alleged prior disclosure or the asserted identity of the designs.
  • The Division found the Amazon evidence sufficient to prove public disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR before the filing date of the contested design.
  • It held that the only visible difference in the inclined platform surface was immaterial, so the designs were identical and the contested design lacked novelty.
  • The invalidity application was upheld, the contested design was declared invalid in full, and the holder was ordered to pay EUR 750 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • 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

30.06

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129301

vs Yu Bao

2026-01-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000129536

vs WENJIU YANG

2025-10-28REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000129724

vs Shenzhen Xianluo Technology Co., Ltd.

2025-10-20REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000124035

vs EDIESI

2024-09-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000124036

vs EDIESI

2024-09-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000124016

vs EDIESI

2024-09-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000123279

vs Jure MARKIČ

2024-05-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000123434

vs Guangzhou ChongChong E-Commerce Co., Ltd.

2024-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308