Invalidity · first instance · 2022-10-28
000118657
Contested design: 008505325-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder’s fixed costs of EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0085053250001 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
Shenzhen Haivi Plastic Products Co. Ltdvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
Building A, Xin’an Industrial Park, No. 9 Xiaopi Road, Longtian Community, Longtian Street, Pingshan District, Shenzhen, China
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Zhitao Qu
China (CN)
No. 39, Group 6, Doushan Village, Longxipu Town, Wugang City, Hunan Province, China
Represented by
Ákos Süle
Prior art cited (2)
ANBET 3 Pack seedling tray shown in Amazon listings, purchase orders and invoices
Amazon ASIN B08 36V ZM7Y / B08 36V 3PN7 · Amazon.de / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.fr
US design patent for a seed tray
US D887 829 S · United States design patent · disclosed 2020-06-23
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on Amazon listings, order records and invoices for an ANBET seedling tray design, plus US design patent D2.
- ›The holder filed no observations and did not contest the application.
- ›The Division found the Amazon links, comparisons and order materials did not clearly and reliably disclose D1, and the thumbnail image was too poor for a proper design comparison.
- ›The Division accepted D2 as disclosed before the filing date but found it neither identical to the contested design nor producing the same overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to reimburse the holder’s representation costs fixed at EUR 400.
Deciding panel
- MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000127595 vs Shenzhen Beipengxing Technology Co., Ltd | 2025-04-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000126496 vs Jiangmen Xinhui Zhenghua Ironware Co., Ltd. | 2025-03-07 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000119700 vs Guohua He | 2023-10-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000119221 vs Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo | 2023-10-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121263 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121319 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121318 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121320 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |