DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015017284-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-02-26

000122955

Contested design: 015017284-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against registered Community design No 015017284-0001 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 015017284-0001 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

Israel Soriano Garciavia PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Calle Chelin, 24, Poligono Atalayas, 03114 Alicante, Spain

Holder · RCD owner

Jun Yu

China (CN)

Linyang West Lake Village, Nanbin Street, Ruian City, Zhejiang Province 325207, China

Represented by

Qiang Zhou

Prior art cited (3)

Registered RCDD1

water color saucer for artists / drawing implements accessory

RCD No 15002261-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin / eSearch · disclosed 2022-11-08

Registered RCDD2

water color saucer for artists / drawing implements accessory

RCD No 15002261-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin / eSearch · disclosed 2022-11-08

Web disclosureD3

brush rinsing device shown in video stills

YouTube video 'Brush Rinser by Green Stuff World is valid for acrylic paints, watercolors, tempera and gouache' · YouTube · disclosed 2022-03-04

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7Article 25(1)(d)Article 25(1)(f)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over earlier RCDs D1 and D2 and a YouTube-disclosed design D3, and also invoked prior-design and copyright grounds.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1 to D3 but found the contested brush-rinsing device created a different overall impression, so novelty and individual character objections failed.
  • The Division also found Article 25(1)(d) inapplicable and the copyright claims unsubstantiated, so the application was rejected in full with costs against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENÉ
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ

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

15.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000116997

vs Zechuang Zheng

2022-06-22Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f)8
000011043

vs BIODOM 27 d.o.o., proizvodnja, trgovina in storitve

2018-12-20Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f)8
000124955

vs Terence A.H.F. Noppe h.o.d.n. EasySwift

2025-09-05Art 25(1)(b)157
000122714

vs LEIFHEIT AG

2024-06-21Art 25(1)(b)157
000120382

vs Jan Ładny

2024-01-09Art 25(1)(b)157
000119103

vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

2023-12-19Art 25(1)(b)157
000119138

vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

2023-12-19Art 25(1)(b)157
000116628

vs DCX POLSKA Sp. z o.o.

2023-01-13Art 25(1)(b)157