DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009096753-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-01-28

000124416

Contested design: 009096753-0003

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected; the contested RCD remains valid.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 009096753-0003 is rejected.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Linxian Tianshenglian Zonghe Menshibu Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

No. 387, Dongguan Street, Lvliang City, Lin County, Shanxi Province 033200, China

Holder · RCD owner

Wenbo Huang

China (CN)

Room 1203, No. 45, Zhihe Street, Yongtai New Village, Yongping Street, Baiyun District, Guangzhou China

Represented by

Mon Yin Lin

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosurePrior design 1

FashionPuzzle Triple Zip Small Crossbody Bag

ASIN B01LWCSMG2 · Amazon.com · disclosed 2016-09-06

Web disclosurePrior design 2

Roulens Women's Mobile Phone Shoulder Bag

ASIN B0B1DLDQTM · Amazon.de · disclosed 2022-05-16

Web disclosurePrior design 3

Roulens shoulder bag in grey colour

ASIN B0B1DLHH1R · Amazon.de · disclosed 2022-05-16

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, relying on three Amazon product listings that it said disclosed identical bag designs before the filing date.
  • The holder challenged the reliability of prior design 1, argued prior designs 2 and 3 fell within the Article 7(2) grace period, and maintained the contested design was not identical in any event.
  • The Division accepted the Amazon evidence for prior design 1 as sufficient disclosure, but found prior designs 2 and 3 attributable to the holder and therefore excluded under the grace period.
  • Comparing prior design 1 with the contested design, the Division found visible differences in metallic details, tassel, key ring and strap width, so novelty was not destroyed and the application was rejected.

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

03.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000124157

vs Invented Here B.V.

2025-03-07Art 25(1)(b)037
000121569

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-06-12Art 25(1)(b)037
000121529

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-31Art 25(1)(b)037
000121525

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-24Art 25(1)(b)037
000121526

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-24Art 25(1)(b)037
000121527

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-23Art 25(1)(b)037
000121568

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-23Art 25(1)(b)037
000121528

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-23Art 25(1)(b)037