DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008793343-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-03-24

000119598

Contested design: 008793343-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 350.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 008793343-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 350.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €350

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Boarding Ringvia PDF extraction

France (FR)

661 Chemin de Chateauvallon, 83190 Ollioules, France

Holder · RCD owner

Shenzhen Chengyimei Cross-border E-commerce Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

1101, Building 10, Row 1, Heshuikou New Village,Heshuikou Community, Matian St., Guangming Dist., Shenzhen, Guangdong 518106 China

Prior art cited (3)

Registered RCD

glasses

RCD No 006233508-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2019-02-14

Prior use

images of other glasses sold by the applicant

applicant's images of glasses sold from 2015

Web disclosure

Citroen promotional video showing the applicant's goggles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjb0VQPahIg · YouTube · disclosed 2018-07-05

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over earlier RCD No 006233508-0001 and also invoked prior design-right, earlier-sign, and copyright grounds based on other glasses evidence and a 2018 video.
  • The holder was invited to respond but filed no observations, leaving the invalidity application undefended.
  • The Division accepted publication of RCD No 006233508-0001 as prior disclosure, found broad designer freedom for glasses, and held the shared four-lens shape and colour arrangement dominated the minor bridge and shade differences.
  • It concluded the contested design produced the same overall impression, lacked individual character under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4 and 6 CDR, and was declared invalid with costs against the holder.

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

16.06

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000113703

vs Enrico Thierbach

2021-07-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)1612
000010930

vs SC VIKING INTERNATIONAL SRL

2018-08-31REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(e)11
000106239

vs Pilotfly Technology Co., Ltd.

2019-09-04REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)1610
000114627

vs Potion Paris Ltd

2022-12-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f)9
000102200

vs MASSAG UK LTD

2019-09-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f)9
000010599

vs DN Trade Group Ltd.

2018-03-28REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(e)9
000129117

vs QINGWEI LIU

2026-03-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)168
000130544

vs ShangHai Jheyewear Co.,Ltd

2026-03-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)168