DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015039578-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-08-18

000128896

Contested design: 015039578-0001

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered EU design No 0150395780001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Cmnstyle S.R.L.via PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

Brasov, Romania

Represented by

Cornel Vladimir Szatmari-Filip

Holder · RCD owner

Sc Pitikot Store Srl

Romania (RO)

Cristian, Jud Sibiu, Romania

Prior art cited (5)

Web disclosureD1

remote control car by KIDS CHOICE

ASIN B0BD3NTQW1 · Amazon.com · disclosed 2022-09-05

Web disclosureD2

remote control car by E T EASYTAO

ASIN B0B9G79Z49 · Amazon.com · disclosed 2022-08-12

Web disclosureD3

remote control car by LSXD

ASIN B0BR4RPVS8 · Amazon.com · disclosed 2022-12-27

Web disclosureD4

remote control car by Sendowtek

ASIN B0B9ZXQ1V2 · Amazon.com · disclosed 2022-08-18

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

alleged prior disclosure of the contested toy car via customer reviews

https://www.emag.ro · emag.ro

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant alleged bad faith and argued that the contested toy-car design lacked novelty and individual character over four earlier Amazon-listed toy-car designs and an alleged earlier emag.ro disclosure.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division treated bad faith as inadmissible, accepted D1 to D4 as prior web disclosures under Article 7(1) EUDR, and rejected the emag.ro material because the image was unusable and untranslated.
  • Comparing the designs, the Division found the body and wheel differences gave the contested design a different overall impression and immediate non-immaterial differences, so novelty and individual character were preserved and the application was rejected.

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

21.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000124438

vs АУТДОР ПЛЕЙ

2025-04-03Art 25(1)(b)217
000126927

vs Jiujiang Storm E-Commerce Co., Ltd.

2025-03-25Art 25(1)(b)217
000121617

vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o.

2024-05-29Art 25(1)(b)217
000121616

vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o.

2024-05-29Art 25(1)(b)217
000121615

vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o.

2024-05-10Art 25(1)(b)217
000114244

vs UTILIS

2024-01-09Art 25(1)(b)217
000121427

vs Jinhua Baiwei Plastic Products Co., Ltd.

2023-11-15Art 25(1)(b)217
000119359

vs TECH LIVING LIMITED

2023-06-12Art 25(1)(b)217