DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008192603-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-10-06

000126376

Contested design: 008192603-0001

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 008192603-0001 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

MRKK ApSvia PDF extraction

Denmark (DK)

Risskov, Denmark

Represented by

Otello Law Firm

Holder · RCD owner

deluxe holding ApS

Denmark (DK)

Kolding, Denmark

Represented by

LØJE IP

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureD1⚠ rejected as evidence

electric candle

Instagram / candled.co.uk / Spring Fair Birmingham

Web disclosureD2

Eldanacele 3D Wick Flameless Candle

Amazon ASIN B 08H GVG DQF · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2020-09-04

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on electric-candle disclosures D1 and D2 said to predate the contested design.
  • The holder disputed disclosure and argued the contested design had distinctive top treatment, proportions, and bottom features, with a high-attention informed user focusing on visible details.
  • The Division rejected D1 as insufficiently proven, accepted D2 as disclosed on Amazon before filing, and found D3 and D4 inadmissible because they were raised too late.
  • Comparing the contested design only with D2, the Division found the upper-part treatment and proportions created a different overall impression, so novelty and individual-character attacks failed.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

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

26.04

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000119619

vs XAL GmbH

2026-04-15Art 25(1)(b)267
000119599

vs XAL GmbH

2026-04-15Art 25(1)(b)267
000119620

vs XAL GmbH

2026-04-15Art 25(1)(b)267
000131624

vs NOVOWISE LTD

2026-03-27Art 25(1)(b)267
000130242

vs DMUSEUM Inc.

2026-03-05Art 25(1)(b)267
000130762

vs TURISPORT, S.L.

2026-02-24Art 25(1)(b)267
000127916

vs Volvo Car Corporation

2026-02-11Art 25(1)(b)267
000128875

vs YUYAO HILITE ELECTRIC CO.,LTD

2025-11-03Art 25(1)(b)267