DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009179377-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-11-06

000124115

Contested design: 009179377-0001

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 009179377-0001 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

Dongguan Juyuan Precision Technology Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

4th Floor, Building K, Central Industrial Zone, Shijie Village Committee, Shijie Town, Dongguan, Guangdong 523000, China

Represented by

Emilio Zeininger

Holder · RCD owner

Shangxing Technology (shenzhen) Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

4/F, Bldg. 30, Zhiheng Industrial Park, No.15, Guankou 2nd Rd., Anle Community, Nantou St., Nanshan, Shenzhen, China

Prior art cited (2)

Patentprior design 1⚠ rejected as evidence

Folding Stand Wireless Charger

CN 307325783 S · Chinese design patent publication · disclosed 2022-05-10

Web disclosureprior design 2⚠ rejected as evidence

folding magnetic wireless charging stand

https://www.geeky-gadgets.com/alterbell-folding-magnetic-wireless-charging-stand-09-09-2022/ · geeky-gadgets.com · disclosed 2022-09-09

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)Article 6(1)Article 25(1)(c)Article 25(1)(d)Article 25(3)Article 7

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity under Articles 25(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d), relying on a Chinese design patent publication and a web disclosure of a folding magnetic wireless charging stand.
  • Holder replied that the contested design validly claimed priority from a Chinese design patent application and that prior design 1 belonged to the holder and fell within the Article 7(2) grace period.
  • The Division found the Article 25(1)(a), (c) and (d) grounds inadmissible because the application lacked supporting facts or entitlement, and the cited designs could not support Article 25(1)(d).
  • For novelty and individual character, the Division held the web evidence insufficient and both cited disclosures post-dated the contested design's priority date of 09/05/2022.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in representation costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberEmmanuel COLLIN

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deGermanhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianhuman 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
000129364

vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd.

2026-05-05Art 25(1)(b)137
000130781

vs Huiru Fang

2026-02-11Art 25(1)(b)137
000126938

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137
000126923

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137
000126936

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137
000126940

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137
000126935

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137
000126926

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137