DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008500961-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-07-28

000119069

Contested design: 008500961-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested Registered Community design No 0085009610001 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 0085009610001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Grupa Orion Spółka z Ograniczoną Odpowiedzialnościąvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Obrońców Westerplatte 73a, 40335 Katowice, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

Suzhou Jianli Machinery & Equipment CO., LTD

China (CN)

Xuzhuang Village, Xiangcheng Economic and Technological Development Zone, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

Represented by

Daniel Dimov

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure

Elitehoff dish rack E-8056 32cm x 43cm x 14cm

Allegro offers No 12207692013, 9938650318 and 9924825537 · allegro.pl / archiwum.allegro.pl · disclosed 2020-11-18

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested dish rack lacked novelty and individual character because the same design had been sold online in 2020 before the filing date.
  • The holder challenged the authenticity and probative value of the Allegro screenshots and argued that several design differences created a different overall impression.
  • The Invalidity Division accepted the Allegro and archived-offer evidence as reliable proof of disclosure before filing and treated the three offers as showing the same prior design.
  • The Division found only minor differences in compartments, tray rim and handles, while the overall shape, structure, proportions and black-and-wood appearance were essentially the same.
  • The application succeeded under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b) CDR, so the contested design was declared invalid.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • 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

07.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129741

vs 2W ORGANIC

2026-05-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131632

vs DETECTALIA EUROPE, S.L.U.

2026-05-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131788

vs Liu Xiaoxia

2026-05-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131628

vs Shenzhen Changhe Technology Co., Ltd

2026-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131704

vs Shenzhen Changhe Technology Co., Ltd

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131745

vs Huan Wang

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000130924

vs SOHAI HOUSEWARES CO.,LTD.

2026-04-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131546

vs Foshan Changyuansheng Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078