DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008480586-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-06-22

000116997

Contested design: 008480586-0001

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 008480586-0001 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

Bird Buddy Inc.via PDF extraction

United States (US)

651 N Broad Street, Suite 206, Middletown, New Castle 1000, United States of America

Represented by

Andrej Bukovnik

Holder · RCD owner

Zechuang Zheng

China (CN)

No.53, Ancestral Hall, No.2; Yuanqian Commune, Jianshan Village, Yujiao Town, Jiedong District, Jieyang, Guangdong, People's Republic of China

Represented by

Maria Ioannides

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

bird feeder with camera

Community design registration No 0084110780001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2021-01-27

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)Article 7(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 25(1)(d)Article 25(1)(f)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, conflict with an earlier design right, and unauthorised use of its Slovenian copyright-protected Bird Buddy feeder design.
  • The holder argued bird feeders with cameras have limited design options, highlighted the different roof and front bird stand, and denied any unauthorised copying or copyright adaptation.
  • The Division found the earlier RCD had been disclosed, but the contested design created a different overall impression because its shape, roof, and front stand differed in the features most relevant to appearance.
  • The Division also held Article 25(1)(d) was inapplicable because the earlier RCD was disclosed before, not after, the contested filing date, and rejected the copyright claim for insufficient showing of protected scope and adaptation.
  • The application was rejected in its entirety and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed representation costs of EUR 400.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberJessica N. LEWIS
  • MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES

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

30.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000122955

vs Jun Yu

2024-02-26Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f)8
000011043

vs BIODOM 27 d.o.o., proizvodnja, trgovina in storitve

2018-12-20Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f)8
000116927

vs Jakub Paško

2022-06-15Art 25(1)(b)307
000111001

vs GRANDE FINALE Gabriela Myślak

2021-03-29Art 25(1)(b)307
000106219

vs EUZIEL International GmbH

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)307
000104559

vs "NUEVA"ООD

2019-10-25Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)307
000102579

vs JULIUS-K9 Zrt.

2019-06-18Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)307
000127916

vs Volvo Car Corporation

2026-02-11Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f)6