DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008129746-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-05-16

000120278

Contested design: 008129746-0003

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0081297460003 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Melissa & Doug, LLCvia PDF extraction

United States (US)

141 Danbury Road, Wilton, Connecticut 06897, United States

Represented by

Boekx Trademarks B.V.

Holder · RCD owner

Shantou Chenghai District Kurui Trading CO., LTD.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

No. 3, Alley 5, Gangkou Anding Road, Fengxiang Street, Chenghai District, Shantou City, Guangdong Province 515000, China

Represented by

Manuel de Arpe Tejero

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureAnnex 6

Screenshot from the video 'Water Wow! Vehicles from Melissa & Doug' showing the prior 'WATER WOW!' water pen

https://www.youtube.com · YouTube · disclosed 2014-06-10

Web disclosureAnnex 7

Screenshot from the video 'Water Wow! Vehicles from Melissa & Doug' showing the prior 'WATER WOW!' water pen

https://www.youtube.com · YouTube · disclosed 2018-07-03

Prior useAnnex 8

Sample invoices for sales of yellow/blue 'WATER WOW!' pens and related products in the EU and the UK

EU and UK sales invoices

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on its earlier 'WATER WOW!' water pen disclosed online and sold in the EU before the filing date.
  • The holder filed no observations and did not contest the alleged disclosures, evidence, or the applicant's comparison of the designs.
  • The Invalidity Division accepted the YouTube screenshots as prior disclosure under Article 7(1) and found the designer's freedom relatively broad for toy writing instruments.
  • It held that the minor differences in text and surface pattern did not alter the overall impression, so the contested design lacked individual character and was invalidated.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES

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

21.01

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)218
000129622

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129681

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000126976

vs Dohány Kft.

2026-04-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131547

vs Brandworl Management Co., Limited

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131507

vs Shenzhen Chenyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-31REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130128

vs joboo GmbH

2026-02-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130086

vs CROSS BORDEP (HK) CO., LIMITED

2026-02-02REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218