DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015016667-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-03-07

000126496

Contested design: 015016667-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against RCD No 015016667-0001 is rejected.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 015016667-0001 is rejected.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Brabantia Nederland B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Leenderweg 182, 5555 CJ Valkenswaard, Netherlands

Represented by

NLO Shieldmark B.V.

Holder · RCD owner

Jiangmen Xinhui Zhenghua Ironware Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Jiangbokeng, Xiaoze Village, Daze Town, Xinhui District, Jiangmen, Guangdong 529100, China

Prior art cited (3)

Registered RCDD1

garbage can / waste bin

Community design registration No 005802055-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-10-30

Web disclosureD2

applicant's garbage can design shown on archived Brabantia website

https://www.brabantia.com/nl/ · Wayback Machine / brabantia.com · disclosed 2020-10-27

Web disclosureD3

applicant's garbage can design shown on archived Brabantia website

https://www.brabantia.com/nl/ · Wayback Machine / brabantia.com · disclosed 2020-08-09

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant alleged the contested garbage-can design lacked novelty and individual character over earlier RCD D1 and earlier marketed designs D2 and D3, and also invoked Article 25(1)(d).
  • Holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1 and archived website designs D2 and D3, but found Enclosures 1 to 3 insufficient to prove disclosure of any identified prior design.
  • It found the contested design differed noticeably from D1, D2 and D3 in proportions, legs, lid integration, handle placement and other visible features, so it produced a different overall impression.
  • The application was rejected because the contested design was new and had individual character, and Article 25(1)(d) did not apply to earlier designs already disclosed before the contested priority date.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL

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

09.09

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000114705

vs Albert Ungrad

2022-03-17Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)099
000114489

vs Hangzhou XiangHui International Trading Co., Ltd.

2021-07-27Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)099
000103859

vs PHOENIX IND SA

2019-07-26Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)099
000127595

vs Shenzhen Beipengxing Technology Co., Ltd

2025-04-15Art 25(1)(b)097
000123875

vs Multiple Products B.V.

2024-10-15Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)097
000119700

vs Guohua He

2023-10-29Art 25(1)(b)097
000119221

vs Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo

2023-10-22Art 25(1)(b)097
000121320

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097