DesignVerdict
← Back to search
Contested design 008761605-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-02-07

000119498

Contested design: 008761605-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application inadmissible

The invalidity application is rejected as inadmissible, and the invalidity fee will not be refunded.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected as inadmissible. 2. The fee for the application for a declaration of invalidity will not be refunded.

CostsNo costs order

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Guangzhou Zhaoduo Commercial Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

One of No. 11, Yuancunyiheng Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou City 510000, China

Represented by

Brettschneider Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH

Jörg Brettschneider

Holder · RCD owner

Feixiang Wang

China (CN)

No. 10, Gaoxin South Fourth Road, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518000, China

Legal grounds invoked

Article 28(1)(b)(vi)Article 52(2)Article 30(1)Article 30(2)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity of the contested design under Article 25(1)(b) CDR in conjunction with Article 4(1) and (2) CDR.
  • The holder filed no observations recorded in the decision because the case was resolved on admissibility before any merits assessment.
  • The Division found the application lacked a reasoned statement of facts, evidence and arguments as required, despite identifying grounds and supplying prior-design evidence.
  • After the applicant failed to remedy the deficiency within the set time limit, the Division rejected the application as inadmissible and refused any refund of the invalidity fee.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberAlfonso CID GONZALEZ

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

21.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000132465

vs Dan Hu

2026-06-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000132284

vs NOVOWISE LTD

2026-06-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000131885

vs Zhenkai Cui

2026-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000129681

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000129622

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000126976

vs Dohány Kft.

2026-04-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000131547

vs Brandworl Management Co., Limited

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000131507

vs Shenzhen Chenyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-31REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217