DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009173545-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-06-05

000122734

Contested design: 009173545-0004

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application 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 009173545-0004 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

Zhumadian Chuangming Trading Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

Zhanglou, Dinglou Village, Shaodian Township, Shangcai County, Zhumadian City, Henan Province 463800, China

Represented by

Thomas-Johannes Jochheim

Holder · RCD owner

Changjiang Xutangrui Technology Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Rm. 1910, Unit 1, Building 1, Jingfu Community, Hongmian West Rd., Changjiang Li Autonomous County 572799, China

Represented by

Krzysztof Breguła

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDD1

Adapters for electrical connector sockets

RCD No 009043060-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2022-05-31

Web disclosureD2

Apple 20W USB-C power adapter

Amazon.de listing for 'Apple 20W USB-C power Adapter' · Amazon.de · disclosed 2020-11-12

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, relying on earlier RCD D1 and Amazon product disclosures D2 predating the contested design.
  • Holder argued Article 25(1)(d) was inapplicable, the Amazon evidence was unreliable, and neither prior design was identical to the contested design.
  • The Division admitted late-filed comparative material, accepted disclosure of both D1 and D2, but found visible differences preventing identity under Article 5.
  • Article 25(1)(d) failed because D1 predated the contested design's filing, and the novelty claim also failed because neither prior design was identical.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed representation costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES

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

13.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000124975

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2025-08-01Art 25(1)(b)137
000124937

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2025-07-14Art 25(1)(b)137
000126960

vs Qiu Chen

2025-05-21Art 25(1)(b)137
000124115

vs Shangxing Technology (shenzhen) Co., Ltd.

2024-11-06Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)137
000122617

vs Shanghai Cuiliang E-commerce Co., Ltd

2024-02-19Art 25(1)(b)137
000121023

vs Piotr Malinowski

2023-07-21Art 25(1)(b)137
000117379

vs WATT AND SEA

2022-12-13Art 25(1)(b)137
000116129

vs WD Plus GmbH

2022-08-30Art 25(1)(b)137