DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015048558-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-11-13

000125455

Contested design: 015048558-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay 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 015048558-0001 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 Super Electric Technology Co.,Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Room 601-602, First Building, No.8 Xinzhongyin commercial Road, Xiping Community,Nancheng District,, Dongguan,Guangdong China

Holder · RCD owner

Wenzhou Lingzhan Technology Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

No.988 Lingzhan Road, Lingkun Street, Oujiangkou Industrial Cluster Zone, Wenzhou, Zhejiang 325000 China

Represented by

Katerina Grišina

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureD1⚠ rejected as evidence

electric cleaning brush offer allegedly shown on Amazon

Amazon

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

Amazon offer for an electric cleaning brush with related review screenshots

www.amazon.de · Amazon.de

Web disclosureD3⚠ rejected as evidence

Amazon offer for an electric cleaning brush, TOPMAKO

www.amazon.de · Amazon.de · disclosed 2023-03-07

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on three earlier electric cleaning brush disclosures from Amazon materials and hyperlinks.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found D1 to D3 were not proven disclosed because the evidence lacked reliable URLs, dates, or complete webpage printouts, and hyperlinks alone were insufficient.
  • Because disclosure under Article 7 CDR was not established, the Division did not assess novelty or individual character further and rejected the application.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES

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

04.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131844

vs Nanchang Wangxing Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)047
000130166

vs Nanchang Wangxing Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)047
000131548

vs Wenwei Ding

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)047
000131585

vs NOVOWISE LTD

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)047
000130088

vs Mindful eCom OÜ

2025-12-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)047
000129185

vs Wenzhou Lingzhan Technology Co., Ltd.

2025-09-18REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)047
0001288952025-07-22REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)047
000127815

vs Daniel-Vasile Ilie

2025-05-16REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)047