DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006669073-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-07-17

000128038

Contested design: 006669073-0001

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application 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 EU design No 006669073-0001 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

Lina Hevia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Xingning City, Guangdong Province, China

Represented by

Dimitris Morides

Holder · RCD owner

Songzhen Li

China (CN)

Shenzhen, China

Represented by

Krzysztof Breguła

Prior art cited (4)

National designD1

registered design published in the Chinese Bulletin, applied for products in Class 13-02

CN 305552017 S · Chinese Bulletin · disclosed 2020-01-14

National designD2

registered design published in the Chinese Bulletin, applied for products in Class 14-06

CN 305270065 S · Chinese Bulletin · disclosed 2019-07-23

National designD3

registered design published in the Chinese Bulletin, applied for products in Class 13-02

CN 305341885 S · Chinese Bulletin · disclosed 2019-09-10

Web disclosureD4

Amazon offer for 'Wireless Charger, Botee 6 in 1 Wireless Charging Dock for…'

ASIN B 07T XXR QY1 · Amazon (amazon.com) · disclosed 2019-07-04

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, arguing the contested charger design was identical to four earlier disclosures D1-D4 under Articles 25(1)(b), 4(1) and 5(1)(b) EUDR.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found D1 and D3 were disclosed only after the contested design's 01/08/2019 filing date, and accepted D2 and D4 as prior disclosures under Article 7(1) EUDR.
  • The Division held D2 and D4 were not identical to the contested design because visible differences and obscured features were not immaterial, so the invalidity application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberEmmanuel COLLIN
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES

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

13.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129364

vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd.

2026-05-05Art 25(1)(b)137
000130781

vs Huiru Fang

2026-02-11Art 25(1)(b)137
000126936

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137
000126923

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137
000126940

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137
000126935

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137
000126938

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137
000126926

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137