DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008314520-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-04-27

000117008

Contested design: 008314520-0001

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 008314520-0001 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

Niko Jakovljevicvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Dr.-Bernhard-Dietrich-Str. 6a, 78224, Singen, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Shenzhen Meifen Technology Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Room 401, Jindongli Technology Park, No.278-1, Dabutou Village, Songyuanxia Community, Guanhu Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Isabelle Bertaux

Prior art cited (5)

Web disclosureScreenshot No. 1⚠ rejected as evidence

pull bar / apparatus for developing muscles

German Amazon web page

Web disclosureScreenshot No. 2⚠ rejected as evidence

pull bar / apparatus for developing muscles

German Amazon web page

Web disclosureScreenshot No. 3⚠ rejected as evidence

pull bar / apparatus for developing muscles

German Amazon web page

Web disclosureScreenshot No. 4⚠ rejected as evidence

pull bar / apparatus for developing muscles

German Amazon web page

Web disclosureScreenshot No. 5⚠ rejected as evidence

pull bar / apparatus for developing muscles

German Amazon web page

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for bad faith, lack of novelty and lack of individual character, relying on Amazon screenshots of earlier pull bars.
  • The decision text sets out no substantive response from the holder.
  • The Division held that bad faith is not an invalidity ground under Article 25(1) CDR, so that part of the application was inadmissible.
  • The Division found the Amazon evidence did not objectively prove when the alleged prior designs were made available to the public, so disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR was not established.
  • The application was rejected as unfounded overall, and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
  • 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

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