DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006707246-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-08-30

000116129

Contested design: 006707246-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 006707246-0002 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Snowkids Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

No. 10, Gaoxin South 4th Road, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518000, Volksrepublik China

Represented by

Maria Ioaninidou

Holder · RCD owner

WD Plus GmbH

Germany (DE)

Wohlenbergstr. 16, 30179 Hannover, Germany

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureD1

cable connectors shown on applicant Amazon listing

https://www.amazon.de/Snowkids-Geflechtkabel-vergoldete-Anschl%C3%BCsse-kompatibelgrau/dp/B07TYHW5Y8/ref=zg_bs_316968011_5?_encoding=UTF8&refRID=8EHDK51SRH471PBWHV5J&th=1 · Amazon.de · disclosed 2019-07-02

Web disclosureD2

cable connectors shown on Amazon listing

https://www.amazon.com/10ft3Pack-Charging-Smartphone-Connection-Blackwhite/dp/B06XYH75NQ/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=cables&qid=1624799763&rnid=2941120011&s=pc&sr=1-6 · Amazon.com · disclosed 2017-03-31

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued the contested cable design lacked novelty and individual character over two earlier Amazon web disclosures, D1 and D2.
  • The holder maintained the contested RCD was new and had individual character; after the applicant added Article 25(1)(d), the holder filed no further observations.
  • The Division accepted D1 and D2 as disclosed under Article 7, but found visible structural differences in the braided pattern, so the designs were not identical.
  • The Division also found the contested design created a different overall impression on the informed user, so the invalidity application was rejected in full.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

13.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000124975

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2025-08-01Art 25(1)(b)137
000124937

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2025-07-14Art 25(1)(b)137
000126960

vs Qiu Chen

2025-05-21Art 25(1)(b)137
000122734

vs Changjiang Xutangrui Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-06-05Art 25(1)(b)137
000122617

vs Shanghai Cuiliang E-commerce Co., Ltd

2024-02-19Art 25(1)(b)137
000121023

vs Piotr Malinowski

2023-07-21Art 25(1)(b)137
000117379

vs WATT AND SEA

2022-12-13Art 25(1)(b)137
000111943

vs Shenzhen Cuco Smart Technology Co., Ltd

2021-01-22Art 25(1)(b)137