DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015023928-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-01-17

000127135

Contested design: 015023928-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 015023928-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Andrés Sebastián Delfino Estebanvia PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Avenida de las Cortes Valencianas 2, 50, 46015 Valencia, Spain

Represented by

ARS Privilegium, S.L

Holder · RCD owner

Xinning Xiaoqing Trading Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

No. 14, Yuanyi North Road, Jinshi Town, Xinning County, Shaoyang, Hunan 422000, China

Represented by

Krzysztof Żuradzki

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosureExhibit 1

UltraFire rechargeable battery shown in a YouTube video

https://www.youtube.com · YouTube · disclosed 2019-10-15

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the contested rechargeable-battery design lacked novelty and individual character because earlier identical or highly similar battery designs had been disclosed online before filing.
  • The applicant relied in particular on YouTube screenshots showing an UltraFire battery in a video uploaded on 15 October 2019 and also referred to Amazon disclosures.
  • The holder filed no observations despite being invited, so the case proceeded undefended on the merits.
  • The Invalidity Division found the YouTube disclosure proven, considered battery shape largely standardised, and held that minor differences in wording and blue shade did not alter the overall impression.
  • The application was upheld because the contested design lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b) CDR.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberEmmanuel COLLIN

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

13.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129383

vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd.

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000129363

vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd.

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000131764

vs Dongguan Penghui New Energy Technology Co., Ltd

2026-03-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000129921

vs SHENZHEN EASTKING TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD

2026-03-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000131186

vs Electronic Way Technology Co.,Ltd

2026-03-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000128636

vs Guangzhou Quemou Trading Co., Ltd.

2026-02-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000128598

vs Guangzhou Quemou Trading Co., Ltd.

2026-02-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000129221

vs Shenzhen Guangtuo Da Lighting Co., LTD

2026-01-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138