DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007371612-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-10-26

000117792

Contested design: 007371612-0002

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 007371612-0002 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, 510920 Guangdong Province, China

Represented by

Nextmarq

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

fitting for a rearview mirror

Community design registration No 002859116-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-11-13

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity based on prior RCD No 002859116-0001, arguing the contested rearview-mirror fitting copied its key features and lacked novelty and individual character.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found Article 25(1)(d) CDR inapplicable because the cited design had been published before the contested filing date, but accepted that same RCD as disclosed prior art under Article 7 CDR.
  • Comparing the designs from the informed user's perspective, the Division held that the differences in bracket angle and color did not alter the overall impression, so the contested design lacked individual character and was invalidated.

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
000117735

vs GUANGZHOU XIANGTAI VEHICLE INDUSTRY CO,LTD

2022-10-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)1210
000117793

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