DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009150980-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-08-18

000128826

Contested design: 009150980-0001

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered EU design No 0091509800001 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

W&P EverPrime UG (haftungsbeschränkt)via PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Köln, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Shenzhen Lireder Industrial Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Represented by

Asternery S.L

Prior art cited (4)

National designD1

Befestigungsvorrichtungen für Fahrradzubehör

German design No 4020182000230001 · Germany · disclosed 2018-08-14

National designD2

Befestigungsvorrichtungen für Fahrradzubehör

German design No 4020182000230002 · Germany · disclosed 2018-08-14

National designD3

Befestigungsvorrichtungen für Fahrradzubehör

German design No 4020182000230003 · Germany · disclosed 2018-08-14

National designD4

Befestigungsvorrichtungen für Fahrradzubehör

German design No 4020182000230004 · Germany · disclosed 2018-08-14

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested vehicle decorative fitting lacks novelty and individual character over four earlier German designs, and that key visible and structural features are essentially identical.
  • Holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1 to D4 but found the contested design's visible top surface and base configuration create a different overall impression from each cited design.
  • Because the differences are immediately perceptible, the design also remains new; the invalidity application was rejected in full.

Deciding panel

  • MemberCarlos MATEO PÉREZ
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • 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

12.16

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000120579

vs Lohia e-mobility GmbH

2025-03-12Art 25(1)(b)127
000120480

vs VER PLAST S.r.l.

2023-11-13Art 25(1)(b)127
000120158

vs elobau GmbH & Co. KG

2023-11-10Art 25(1)(b)127
000120409

vs VER PLAST S.r.l.

2023-11-10Art 25(1)(b)127
000120410

vs VER PLAST S.r.l.

2023-11-10Art 25(1)(b)127
000118758

vs HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD

2023-10-16Art 25(1)(b)127
000118721

vs HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD

2023-10-16Art 25(1)(b)127
000118360

vs Wang-Chuan CHEN

2023-08-03Art 25(1)(b)127