DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009093966-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-04-18

000123534

Contested design: 009093966-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0090939660001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Shenzhen Ojieni Silicone Technology Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

42 Tang Er Road, 1st Floor, Henggang Street, Longgang District, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518000, China

Holder · RCD owner

Shenzhen Guangran Technology Co., LTD

China (CN)

B401B406, Hongshengyuan Information Industry Park, No.339 Bulong Road, Bantian Street, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129, China

Represented by

Emilio Zeininger

Prior art cited (1)

Patent

teething ring

Chinese design patent No CN306131221S (application No CN202030528896.7) · China · disclosed 2020-10-27

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, relying on an earlier Chinese design patent said to disclose the same teething ring before the contested filing date.
  • The holder filed no observations and did not contest disclosure, novelty, or the applicant’s evidence.
  • The Division found the earlier Chinese publication was disclosed under Article 7(1) CDR and that any colour or material differences were immaterial because the contested design was shown in abstract line drawings.
  • The designs were identical within Article 5(2) CDR, so novelty was lacking and the application was upheld in full with costs against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberIneta GALUBICKE
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ

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

24.04

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131246

vs Life Vac LLC

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000131089

vs Rongrong Gao

2026-04-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000128555

vs Juliane Hesse-Ilyas

2026-02-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000129035

vs OMNIOXY SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA

2025-09-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000127199

vs Xiamen Tuoke Trading Co., Ltd.

2025-03-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000125355

vs Shenzhen Sainuotong Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-10-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000125317

vs Life Vac LLC

2024-08-16REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000123775

vs Schunk Ingenieurkeramik GmbH

2024-07-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248