DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015013461-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-08-13

000123795

Contested design: 015013461-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity 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 0150134610001 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

Chen Yueyunvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Room 103, No.4 Weisheng Building, No.1 Erheng Road, West Zone, Tongda Creative Park, Hebian, Helong Street, Baiyun District, Guangzhou 510000, China

Holder · RCD owner

Meirong Huang

China (CN)

1B801, Hua Huiruixi, Yongxiang Road, Bantian Street, Longgang District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Represented by

Isabelle Bertaux

Prior art cited (5)

Registered RCDD1

adhesive tape

RCD No 0073729410001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2019-12-12

Registered RCDD2

adhesive tape

RCD No 0080393820001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2020-07-15

Registered RCDD3

adhesive tape

RCD No 0085186410001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2021-04-30

Registered RCDD4

adhesive tape

RCD No 0085959200001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2021-07-01

Prior use⚠ rejected as evidence

applicant's adhesive tape allegedly sold via Amazon online stores

ASIN B 08X YQ6 GZH · Amazon.de / Amazon.fr / Amazon.es / Amazon.it

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over four earlier RCDs and alleged prior sales of its own adhesive tape through Amazon.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of RCDs D1 to D4 but rejected the Amazon purchase orders as insufficient to identify the applicant's alleged prior design with adequate precision.
  • It found the contested adhesive tape created a different overall impression from each cited RCD and was not identical to any of them.
  • The application was rejected under Article 25(1)(b), and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esSpanishhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

05.04

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000127715

vs Meirong Huang

2025-05-23Art 25(1)(b)057
000131724

vs Shenzhen Shuangzhi E-commerce Co., Ltd.

2026-04-22Art 25(1)(b)055
000131630

vs Shenghui Wei

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)055
000131631

vs Shenzhen Shuangzhi E-commerce Co., Ltd.

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)055
000130181

vs Shenzhen Zongyuan Technology Co., Ltd

2025-11-24Art 25(1)(b)055
000121025

vs FOLPOL ROBERT BARCZYK, JACEK CYGAN

2024-03-05Art 25(1)(b)055
000121039

vs FOLPOL ROBERT BARCZYK, JACEK CYGAN

2024-03-01REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)055
000122054

vs Scott Nettelton

2023-11-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)055