DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009086713-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-05-29

000123279

Contested design: 009086713-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 009086713-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Yongjie Livia PDF extraction

China (CN)

3271, 3rd Floor, No.39, Queshan New Village, Gaofeng Community, Dalang Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen 518000, China

Represented by

Ákos Süle

Holder · RCD owner

Jure Markičvia PDF extraction

SI

Zgornja Jevnica 2, SI1281 Kresnice, Slovenia

Represented by

Jure Marn

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureD1

automatic chicken door offered by RUN-TIGER LLC

ASIN B08WCKVGR1 · Amazon.com · disclosed 2021-02-10

Web disclosureD2

chicken house door identified as 'ATRNA Porta Automatica del Pollaio'

ASIN B09NJKWJK1 · Amazon.it · disclosed 2021-12-13

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested animal-gate design was identical or at least lacked individual character over earlier Amazon-disclosed chicken-door designs D1 and D2.
  • Holder argued the prior designs were not properly identified or reproduced individually, that features could not be combined, and that incomplete views prevented proving identity.
  • The Division found D1 sufficiently identified and disclosed on Amazon before the priority date, with enough evidence for comparison under Article 7(1) CDR.
  • Comparing the protected shape features, the Division found the contested design produced the same overall impression as D1 on the informed user despite minor alleged differences.
  • The application was upheld under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b); D2 and the novelty ground were not examined further.

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

30.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129301

vs Yu Bao

2026-01-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000129536

vs WENJIU YANG

2025-10-28REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000129724

vs Shenzhen Xianluo Technology Co., Ltd.

2025-10-20REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000124016

vs EDIESI

2024-09-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000124036

vs EDIESI

2024-09-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000124035

vs EDIESI

2024-09-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000123434

vs Guangzhou ChongChong E-Commerce Co., Ltd.

2024-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000123141

vs Haoyu Wang

2024-03-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308