DesignVerdictBeta
← 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.via PDF extraction

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
000131885

vs Zhenkai Cui

2026-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000129622

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000129681

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
000130128

vs joboo GmbH

2026-02-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217
000130086

vs CROSS BORDEP (HK) CO., LIMITED

2026-02-02REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)217