DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008798995-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-04-11

000119878

Contested design: 008798995-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against registered Community design No 008798995-0002 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 008798995-0002 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

Nina-Maria Drenkowvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Marschnerstraße 32, 22081 Hamburg, Germany

Represented by

Lexea Rechtsanwälte

Holder · RCD owner

Henan Nanhua Qianmu Biological Technology Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

No. 8503a-8503b, 5th Floor, Huanghejiangong Building, Jinshui District, Zhengzhou, Henan 450000, China

Represented by

Ioannides, Cleanthous & Co LLC

Eleni Loizidou

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure

Amazon offer for an artificial Pampas Grass / artificial plant

https://www.amazon.de; ASIN B09 1Z3 3K4B · Amazon.de · disclosed 2021-04-05

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(a)Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity because the design views were allegedly contradictory and because the design lacked novelty and individual character over an Amazon-disclosed earlier design.
  • The applicant relied on an Amazon.de listing for an artificial Pampas Grass allegedly available since 5 April 2021; the holder filed no observations.
  • The Division found the registered views clear and consistent, so the design met the definition in Article 3(a) and was not invalid on that ground.
  • The Division accepted the Amazon listing as evidence of disclosure, but the earlier design was too imprecisely shown to permit a reliable comparison with the contested design.
  • The application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed representation costs of EUR 400.

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

11.04

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000115083

vs WESTERN REGION ENTERPRISES XIAMEN LIMITED

2022-01-31Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)119
000115082

vs WESTERN REGION ENTERPRISES XIAMEN LIMITED

2022-01-31Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)119
000129981

vs BLOOM OBJECTS ApS

2025-11-12Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)117
000122480

vs Lilou Sp. z o.o.

2025-06-03Art 25(1)(b)117
000123774

vs Gusta Garden GmbH

2024-11-06Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)117
000124459

vs Gusta Garden GmbH

2024-10-04Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)117
000122480

vs Lilou Sp. z o.o.

2024-05-23Art 25(1)(b)117
000120678

vs POMELLATO S.p.A.

2023-11-23Art 25(1)(b)117