DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015001929-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-09-11

000122635

Contested design: 015001929-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested registered Community design is declared invalid, and the holders must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Se estima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad. 2. Se declara nulo el modelo comunitario registrado n.º 015001929-0001. 3. Los titulares cargarán con las costas, fijadas en 750 EUR.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Shenzhen Heisai Technology Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

306B, 3F, Plant 2, Haochuang Longhua Industrial Park, 95 Yousong Road, Fukang Community, Longhua Street, Longhua Country, Shenzhen, China

Holder · RCD owner

Shenzhen Fanwo E-Commerce Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

3605G16, Adong, Xingheshiji, Caitianlu3069hao, Gangxiashequ, Futianjiedao, Futianqu, Futianqu, Shenzhen 518026, China

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosureD1

DIYexpert insect screen

https://www.amazon.de/dp/B08VC3CQYT?th=1 · Amazon.de · disclosed 2021-01-28

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the contested insect screen lacked individual character over earlier disclosure D1 and also alleged non-compliance with Article 25(1)(a) because the views showed inconsistent mesh colour.
  • The holders said the darker appearance in view 1.3 resulted from photography conditions and that the much finer, more transparent mesh created a different overall impression.
  • The Division accepted the Amazon.de listing for the DIYexpert screen as prior disclosure from 28 January 2021 and treated it as part of the prior art under Article 7(1).
  • Comparing the registered views, the Division found the shared rectangular screen, dark mesh and centrally placed zipper outweighed the frame difference, so the contested design lacked individual character.
  • The invalidity application was upheld under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4(1) and 6(1)(b); the other grounds were not examined and costs were awarded against the holders.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENE
  • MemberLudmila ELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberALVARO Sesma MERINO

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

25.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129804

vs Mirosław Mytnik StudioDelta.pl

2026-05-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129781

vs SHANGHAI KENDA INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

2026-02-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000126955

vs Decora S.A.

2026-01-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129761

vs Shanghai Kenda Industrial Co.,Ltd.

2025-11-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000127177

vs Hermanus Johannes Matheus Verdegaal

2025-10-14REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129361

vs Xiaoxia LI

2025-10-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129266

vs Taiyuan Jiuchangsheng Trading Co., Ltd.

2025-10-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000124780

vs D.ELLINAS FACTORY PRODUCTS LTD

2025-06-25REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258