DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008764963-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-04-12

000119724

Contested design: 008764963-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0087649630002 is rejected. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Lian Chenvia PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Calle de la Marga, s/n Pol. Ind. Nuestra Señora del Rosario, 45224 Seseña Nuevo (Toledo), Spain

Holder · RCD owner

Guohua He

China (CN)

Unit 5, Building 3, Rattle Garden, Ersanli Street, Yiwu City, Zhejiang Province, China

Represented by

Metida

Prior art cited (5)

Registered RCDD1

blister package

RCD No 0063436380010 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2019-04-10

Registered RCDD2

blister package

RCD No 0045227870052 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-02-22

Registered RCDD3

blister package

RCD No 0063436380002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2019-04-10

Registered RCDD4

blister package

RCD No 0045227870094 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-02-22

Registered RCDD5

blister package

RCD No 0045227870083 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-02-22

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character, relying on five earlier RCDs for blister packaging and arguing the contested packaging reused the same color scheme and overall appearance.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of all five earlier RCDs through their publication in the Community Designs Bulletin before the contested design's filing date.
  • The Division found the contested design differed in shape, contours, attached box, and decorative elements, so the shared eyelet, rectangular format, and colors did not create the same overall impression.
  • The application was rejected because the contested design retained individual character over all invoked prior designs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberCarlos MATEO PÉREZ

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

09.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000127595

vs Shenzhen Beipengxing Technology Co., Ltd

2025-04-15Art 25(1)(b)097
000126496

vs Jiangmen Xinhui Zhenghua Ironware Co., Ltd.

2025-03-07Art 25(1)(b)097
000119700

vs Guohua He

2023-10-29Art 25(1)(b)097
000119221

vs Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo

2023-10-22Art 25(1)(b)097
000121263

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121319

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121318

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121320

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097