DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015023928-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-01-21

000126895

Contested design: 015023928-0002

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 015023928-0002 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 2

Samsung INR18650-25R battery design shown in screenshots from a YouTube video

https://www.youtube.com · YouTube · disclosed 2016-04-24

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested rechargeable battery design lacked novelty and individual character because identical earlier battery designs had been disclosed online before the filing date.
  • To support invalidity, the applicant relied on screenshots from a publicly accessible YouTube video uploaded on 24/04/2016 showing the Samsung INR18650-25R battery design.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found the YouTube disclosure proven under Article 7(1) CDR and held that the contested design created the same overall impression as the prior battery design.
  • The application was upheld in full, the contested design was declared invalid, and the holder was ordered to pay EUR 750 in costs.

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