DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007371653-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-10-26

000117735

Contested design: 007371653-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 007371653-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Paaschburg & Wunderlich GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Am Alten Lokschuppen 10a, 21509 Glinde, Germany

Represented by

Olaf E. Wirth

Holder · RCD owner

Guangzhou Xiangtai Vehicle Industry Co, LTDvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

C Workshop Dafutian Chengjiao Street Conghua, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, 510920, China

Represented by

Nextmarq

Prior art cited (3)

Registered RCD

rearview mirror

RCD No 001730391-0001 · EUIPO Registered Community design publication · disclosed 2010-07-12

Registered RCD

rearview mirror

RCD No 002859116-0001 · EUIPO Registered Community design publication · disclosed 2015-11-13

CatalogAnnex 3b

Paaschburg & Wunderlich catalogue excerpts showing a rearview mirror

Paaschburg & Wunderlich catalogue

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity of the contested rearview-mirror design, relying mainly on earlier RCDs and catalogue evidence and arguing that key shape and bracket features had been copied.
  • The holder was invited to respond but filed no observations.
  • The Division found Article 25(1)(d) CDR inapplicable because the cited registered designs had been published before the contested design filing date.
  • The Division accepted the catalogue evidence as proving prior disclosure and held that the contested and earlier designs created the same overall impression despite minor bracket and colour differences.
  • The application was upheld, the contested design was invalidated for lack of individual character, and the holder was ordered to bear the costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL

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

12.16

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000117793

vs GUANGZHOU XIANGTAI VEHICLE INDUSTRY CO,LTD

2022-10-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)1210
000117792

vs GUANGZHOU XIANGTAI VEHICLE INDUSTRY CO,LTD

2022-10-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)1210
000102200

vs MASSAG UK LTD

2019-09-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)1210
000124336

vs Radosław Pryba

2026-05-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128
000128979

vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128
000129039

vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128
000129038

vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128
000129075

vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128