DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015062597-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-04-15

000127595

Contested design: 015062597-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's fixed costs of EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 015062597-0001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Kate Butlervia PDF extraction

United Kingdom (GB)

Festival House, Jessop Avenue, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL50 3SH United Kingdom

Holder · RCD owner

Shenzhen Beipengxing Technology Co., Ltd

China (CN)

304, Wandefu, No. 75, Industrial East Road, Xinniu Community, Minzhi Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen 518000 China

Represented by

Ákos Süle

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureEnclosure A

'Duo Pack of Solar Buddies' refillable bottles shown in an Amazon offer

https://www.amazon.co.uk ; ASIN B 07N GR6 4M5 · Amazon website · disclosed 2019-02-07

Web disclosureEnclosure A1⚠ rejected as evidence

Image of the Solar Buddies bottle allegedly posted on the internet

disclosed 2015-02-06

Web disclosureEnclosure A2⚠ rejected as evidence

Solar Buddies suntan lotion bottles shown in a YouTube video snapshot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2bA8lIvvdM · YouTube · disclosed 2015-03-17

Web disclosureEnclosure A3⚠ rejected as evidence

Solar Buddies suntan lotion bottles shown in a YouTube video snapshot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOObKGdmcc0 · YouTube

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested cosmetics-bottle design lacked novelty and individual character because similar Solar Buddies bottles had already been disclosed on Amazon and in internet and YouTube materials before filing.
  • The holder filed no observations, so the invalidity application was undefended.
  • The Division accepted Enclosure A's Amazon printout as sufficient proof of public disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR, but rejected Enclosures A1 to A3 because they lacked complete source information in the evidence itself.
  • Comparing the accepted prior design with the contested design, the Division found the flatter cylindrical base and different proportions changed the overall impression, so the Article 5 and 6 grounds failed and the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
  • 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

09.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000126496

vs Jiangmen Xinhui Zhenghua Ironware Co., Ltd.

2025-03-07Art 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
000121263

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121318

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121319

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121320

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000118357

vs SOCIETA' GENERALE DELLE ACQUE MINERALI S.P.A.

2023-08-01Art 25(1)(b)097