DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008188221-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-11-17

000118361

Contested design: 008188221-0001

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 0081882210001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Yiwu Jinjiang Trading Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

2nd Floor, Unit 3, Building B1, No.117 Qiushi Road, Beiyuan Street, Yiwu City, Zhejiang Province 322007, China

Represented by

Krzysztof Breguła

Holder · RCD owner

Shenzhen Tengyue E-Commerce Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

F/2, No.24, Lane 9, Jianshe Rd., Pinghu Sub-dist., Longgang Dist., Shenzhen, China

Prior art cited (5)

Web disclosureD1

https://www.amazon.de · Amazon.de

Web disclosureD2

https://www.amazon.de · Amazon.de

Web disclosureD3

https://www.amazon.de · Amazon.de

Web disclosureD4

https://www.amazon.de · Amazon.de

Web disclosureD5

ProPlus 2 x Telescopic Tent Pole 93-230 cm Aluminium 3 Sizes Adjustable

ASIN B07 PVL M36J · Amazon.de · disclosed 2019-03-22

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested tent-pole design was identical, or at least produced the same overall impression, as five earlier Amazon.de disclosures D1 to D5.
  • The holder filed no observations and did not contest disclosure or the applicant’s novelty and individual-character objections.
  • The Invalidity Division found Amazon evidence sufficient to prove disclosure of D5 on 22 March 2019 and treated internet posting as valid prior art under Article 7(1).
  • Comparing the visible features, the Division found the contested design and D5 identical apart from an immaterial colour-shade variation, so the design lacked novelty.
  • The application was upheld, the contested design was declared invalid, and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES

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

21.04

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131885

vs Zhenkai Cui

2026-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129622

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129681

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000126976

vs Dohány Kft.

2026-04-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131547

vs Brandworl Management Co., Limited

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131507

vs Shenzhen Chenyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-31REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130128

vs joboo GmbH

2026-02-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130086

vs CROSS BORDEP (HK) CO., LIMITED

2026-02-02REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218