DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008661839-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-01-28

000118417

Contested design: 008661839-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 008661839-0001 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 008661839-0001 is rejected. 3. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Guanzhen Zengvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Erlenweg 6, 64665 Alsbach-Haehnlein, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Shenzhen Chenyao Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Room 603, No. 12, Qilin West Nine Lane, Nankeng Community, Bantian Street, Longgang District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province 518129, China

Represented by

Ákos Süle

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureDesign 1⚠ rejected as evidence

Ipalmay Home Duck Night Light for Kids

ASIN B08BP4VQJW · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2020-06-23

Web disclosureDesign 2

Dull Duck Sleep Lamp

https://www.behance.net/gallery/97744299/DULL-DUC · behance.net · disclosed 2020-05-26

OtherDesign 3⚠ rejected as evidence

United States copyright registration extract and drawings for the invoked creation

VA0002267585 · United States Copyright Office

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, relying on three earlier duck-shaped night-lamp disclosures predating the contested design's filing date.
  • Holder argued the application should fail on formal grounds because the applicant allegedly lacked a valid EEA domicile and representative, and filed no substantive novelty defence to Design 2.
  • The Division rejected the holder's formal objection, found Designs 1 and 3 insufficiently proven as disclosures, and accepted only the Behance disclosure for Design 2.
  • Although Design 2 matched the visible common views, it did not disclose all views shown in the contested design, so identity under Article 5 CDR was not established and the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO

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

26.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000128736

vs Senjia (Dongguan)Electronic Technology Co., LTD

2025-07-11Art 25(1)(b)267
000125015

vs Honglan YIN

2025-02-10Art 25(1)(b)267
000124516

vs YUYAO HILITE ELECTRIC CO.,LTD

2024-12-19Art 25(1)(b)267
000121816

vs AMV Technology s.r.o.

2024-07-12Art 25(1)(b)267
000121836

vs AMV Technology s.r.o.

2024-07-12Art 25(1)(b)267
000121120

vs DELTA LIGHT NV

2024-06-18Art 25(1)(b)267
000121119

vs DELTA LIGHT NV

2024-06-13Art 25(1)(b)267
000120900

vs DELTA LIGHT NV

2024-06-10Art 25(1)(b)267