DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008057855-0010

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-12-19

000124516

Contested design: 008057855-0010

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 008057855-0010 is rejected. 3. The applicant bears the holder's costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Mingwang Yuvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

No. 36, Langwangqiao Natural Village, Xiaoxikou Village, Meixi Town, Anji County, Zhejiang Province, China

Represented by

Maria Ioannides

Holder · RCD owner

Yuyao Hilite Electric Co., LTDvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

CE23, Far East Industrial Park, Yuyao City - Zhejiang Province, 315400 China

Represented by

Mondial Marchi S.p.A.

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureD1

Zafferano Pina Pro lamp offer on Amazon

ASIN B08953S2PH · amazon.com · disclosed 2020-07-18

Web disclosureD2

Zafferano Lampada Pina Pro lamp offer on Amazon

ASIN B08953S2PH · amazon.it · disclosed 2020-06-09

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(2)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on Amazon listings of the Zafferano Pina Pro lamp published before the filing date.
  • The holder accepted the cited online disclosures but argued they fell within the Article 7(2) grace period because Zafferano marketed the lamp from information supplied by the holder.
  • The Division found the Amazon printouts proved disclosure, but the holder's invoices, emails, declarations and related evidence showed the disclosures stemmed from the holder's own pre-filing commercialisation.
  • Because the cited disclosures were excluded under the grace period, the invalidity grounds under Articles 5 and 6 failed and the application was rejected with costs against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberEmmanuel COLLIN
  • MemberEnrico D'ERRICO

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

26.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000128736

vs Senjia (Dongguan)Electronic Technology Co., LTD

2025-07-11Art 25(1)(b)267
000125015

vs Honglan YIN

2025-02-10Art 25(1)(b)267
000121836

vs AMV Technology s.r.o.

2024-07-12Art 25(1)(b)267
000121816

vs AMV Technology s.r.o.

2024-07-12Art 25(1)(b)267
000121120

vs DELTA LIGHT NV

2024-06-18Art 25(1)(b)267
000121119

vs DELTA LIGHT NV

2024-06-13Art 25(1)(b)267
000120900

vs DELTA LIGHT NV

2024-06-10Art 25(1)(b)267
000123474

vs José Joaquim Durães

2024-04-24Art 25(1)(b)267