DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015003373-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-03-18

000122474

Contested design: 015003373-0002

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

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0150033730002 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

Nan Huangvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

No. 15, Building 17, No. 92, University South Road, Erqi District, Zhengzhou City, Henan Province 450000, China

Represented by

Qiang Zhou

Holder · RCD owner

HuiLan Zeng

France (FR)

67 rue Saint-Jacques, 75005 Paris, France

Prior art cited (4)

Registered RCDD1

solar lights

RCD No 0005830000010 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2006-09-26

National designD2⚠ rejected as evidence

solar lights

Chinese design application No 202230552752.4 · China · disclosed 2023-01-06

National designD3

solar lights

Chinese design application No 202030014283.1 · China · disclosed 2020-08-25

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Alleged prior product disclosure via shopping-site screenshots, product images and video screenshots

https://www.amazon.de/dp/B08Q7FVM9Y?th=1; https://detail.1688.com/offer/649313040372.html?spm=a360q.8274423.0.0.27044c9aNJtHFl; https://www.alibaba.com; https://www.tiktok.com · Amazon.de; 1688; Alibaba; TikTok

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over D1, D2, D3 and alleged earlier online disclosures.
  • Holder argued the common features were functional or market-standard and that visible differences in poles, lights, base and solar unit changed the overall impression.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1 and D3, but rejected D2 and the links, screenshots and video materials as insufficient or temporally irrelevant evidence.
  • Comparing D1 and D3 with the contested solar-light design, the Division found pronounced differences in the poles, light heads, power-source placement and base.
  • The contested design retained novelty and individual character, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENÉ
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberIneta GALUBICKE

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

26.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000128736

vs Senjia (Dongguan)Electronic Technology Co., LTD

2025-07-11Art 25(1)(b)267
000125015

vs Honglan YIN

2025-02-10Art 25(1)(b)267
000124516

vs YUYAO HILITE ELECTRIC CO.,LTD

2024-12-19Art 25(1)(b)267
000121816

vs AMV Technology s.r.o.

2024-07-12Art 25(1)(b)267
000121836

vs AMV Technology s.r.o.

2024-07-12Art 25(1)(b)267
000121120

vs DELTA LIGHT NV

2024-06-18Art 25(1)(b)267
000121119

vs DELTA LIGHT NV

2024-06-13Art 25(1)(b)267
000120900

vs DELTA LIGHT NV

2024-06-10Art 25(1)(b)267