DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015016117-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-06-23

000125715

Contested design: 015016117-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, Registered EU design No 015016117-0001 is declared invalid, and the holder must bear EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered EU design No 015016117-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Volvo Car Corporationvia PDF extraction

Sweden (SE)

Göteborg, Sweden

Holder · RCD owner

Skywell Automobile Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, China

Prior art cited (4)

OtherD1

applicant's earlier design

OtherD2

earlier design of Polestar Performance AB, an affiliated company of the applicant

Web disclosureD3

automobile headlight design incorporated in the 'BEO' car

https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/Elektroauto-Elaris-Beo-Mittelklasse-SUV-aus-China-kommt-nach-Deutschland-6057779.html · heise.de · disclosed 2021-05-31

National designD4

Chinese registration for a nearly identical design

CN 306968140 · China

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on D1 to D4, especially D3 shown in a 31 May 2021 heise.de article about the BEO car.
  • Holder challenged the authenticity and quality of the website evidence, argued the whole headlight and illuminated daytime running lights should be considered, and maintained the designs created different impressions.
  • The Division held only the front-visible features of the headlight matter under Article 4(2), accepted D3 as a valid internet disclosure outside the grace period, and found sufficient designer freedom.
  • Comparing the visible features, it found the designs highly similar and the daytime-running-light differences insufficient to alter the overall impression, so the contested design lacked individual character.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ

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

26.06

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000130945

vs Space Copenhagen Design ApS

2026-05-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)268
000131284

vs Venture MK UG (haftungsbeschränkt)

2026-04-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)268
000131264

vs Venture MK UG (haftungsbeschränkt)

2026-04-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)268
000131304

vs Venture MK UG (haftungsbeschränkt)

2026-04-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)268
000131245

vs Venture MK UG (haftungsbeschränkt)

2026-04-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)268
000131366

vs DANMAR TECH SL

2026-04-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)268
000131247

vs chao zhai

2026-04-02REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)268
000129540

vs Ningbo Wilder Outdoor Products Co., Ltd.

2026-03-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)268