DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002175190-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-08-03

000118360

Contested design: 002175190-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 002175190-0001 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 002175190-0001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Apollon Capital & Consulting GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Kalker Hauptstr. 296, 51103 Köln, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Wang-Chuan Chenvia PDF extraction

Taiwan (TW)

No. 37, Lane 278, Hai Wei Road, Longjing Dist., Taichung City, Taiwan

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureDesign 1

Rampage Single Mini Launch Ramp

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B000N4SAHS/ · amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2007-03-12

Web disclosureDesign 2

Rampage Single Mini Launch Ramp

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B000N4SAHS/ · amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2007-03-12

Web disclosureDesign 3

Rampage set

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B000N4SAHI · amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2007-03-12

Web disclosureDesign 4

Rampage set

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B000N4SAH8 · amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2007-03-12

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant claimed the contested ramp design lacked novelty because identical ramps had been offered on Amazon since 12 March 2007.
  • The holder disputed the reliability and dating of the Amazon evidence and argued the cited ramps were not identical to the contested design.
  • The Division accepted Designs 1 to 4 as disclosed online before filing, but found visible differences in the back face, corners, arrow motif, and other features.
  • Because the cited designs were not identical within Article 5(2) CDR, the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL

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

12.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000128826

vs Shenzhen Lireder Industrial Co., Ltd.

2025-08-18Art 25(1)(b)127
000120579

vs Lohia e-mobility GmbH

2025-03-12Art 25(1)(b)127
000120480

vs VER PLAST S.r.l.

2023-11-13Art 25(1)(b)127
000120158

vs elobau GmbH & Co. KG

2023-11-10Art 25(1)(b)127
000120409

vs VER PLAST S.r.l.

2023-11-10Art 25(1)(b)127
000120410

vs VER PLAST S.r.l.

2023-11-10Art 25(1)(b)127
000118758

vs HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD

2023-10-16Art 25(1)(b)127
000118721

vs HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD

2023-10-16Art 25(1)(b)127