DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009145022-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-06-02

000124936

Contested design: 009145022-0001

EUDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested EU design 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 EU design No 009145022-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Patrick Heiligersvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Aachen, Germany

Represented by

Lexea Rechtsanwälte

Holder · RCD owner

Yingkou Baoxin Trading Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

Yingkou, Liaoning Province, China

Represented by

Andrea Albert Catala

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosure

Furein10 bathroom grip

https://www.amazon.es; ASIN B09RKDFGWK · Amazon.es · disclosed 2022-01-31

Web disclosure

LORESJOY bathroom grip

https://www.amazon.de; ASIN B09S5TG4ZB · Amazon.de · disclosed 2022-02-10

National design

Chinese design registration in class 06-06

202030759740.X · Chinese design bulletin · disclosed 2022-04-26

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that earlier Amazon listings disclosed an identical or near-identical bathroom tap grip before the filing date, so the contested design lacked novelty and individual character.
  • The holder said its own earlier Amazon listing fell within the grace period, denied any link to the applicant's cited listing, and disputed the relevance of the applicant's other evidence.
  • The Invalidity Division found the Amazon.es listing sufficiently proved public disclosure before filing and held that the grace-period exception did not apply to that unrelated prior design.
  • Comparing the designs, the Division found the same overall impression on the informed user and declared the contested design invalid in full.

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

23.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000132264

vs SHANDONG QIYUE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD

2026-05-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000131884

vs Zhaoqing Mikasi Home Hardware Co., LTD

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000130601

vs Zhou Canbin

2026-01-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000127275

vs GRZEGORZ PIĄTEK PHU "TOP SERVIS"

2025-09-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000128177

vs DECATHLON

2025-08-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000126775

vs Ecomsoul Pro SRL

2025-07-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
0001267152025-07-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000128196

vs Rafał Sowa

2025-07-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238