DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015063987-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-12-15

000127959

Contested design: 015063987-0002

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against registered EU design No 0150639870002 is rejected, and the applicant must bear costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered EU design No 0150639870002 is rejected. 3. The applicant bears the costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Wowderful Trading OÜvia PDF extraction

EE

Tallinn, Harju maakond, Estonia

Represented by

Yu Lin

Holder · RCD owner

Peng Zhang

China (CN)

Lvliang, Shanxi, China

Represented by

Tong Yang SLU

Prior art cited (5)

Web disclosureAnnex 1⚠ rejected as evidence

Ansobea Handlauf Geländer für Treppen Innen und Außn 75 cm stair handrail product listing

ASIN B0CRXVXH1Y · Amazon.de · disclosed 2024-01-10

Web disclosureAnnex 2⚠ rejected as evidence

Ansobea Handlauf Geländer für Treppen Innen und Außn 55 cm stair handrail product listing

ASIN B0CX8KDJ47 · Amazon.de · disclosed 2024-03-06

Web disclosureAnnex 3⚠ rejected as evidence

Ogimeka Treppengeländer Innen stair handrail product listing

ASIN B0CGX7D46V · Amazon.de · disclosed 2023-08-30

Web disclosureAnnex 4⚠ rejected as evidence

T-ZBDZ Treppengeländer Innen Schwarz stair handrail product listing

ASIN B0CGV8ZTC5 · Amazon.de · disclosed 2023-08-29

Web disclosureAnnex 5

SCGSJZH Geländer Treppen Schwarz stair handrail product listing

ASIN B0CPBTRXJV · Amazon.de · disclosed 2023-12-02

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued lack of novelty based on five Amazon.de stair-handrail listings published before 19/06/2024.
  • The holder said Annexes 3 and 4 were authorised disclosures within the 12-month grace period and Annexes 1, 2 and 5 were copies of its products.
  • The Division found Article 6 inadmissible for lack of substantiation, treated Annexes 1 to 4 as insufficient or excluded evidence, and accepted only Annex 5 as a disclosed prior design.
  • Comparing Annex 5 with the contested design, the Division found non-immaterial differences in the bottom mounting parts and rejected the invalidity application.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberDimitrios ANDRIANOPOULOS

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

25.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000130245

vs G.B.S., s.r.o.

2026-01-20Art 25(1)(b)257
000130202

vs SC PAMABA SRL

2025-12-16Art 25(1)(b)257
000127997

vs Peng Zhang

2025-12-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000127935

vs Saunasell OÜ

2025-11-07Art 25(1)(b)257
000127897

vs Saunasell OÜ

2025-11-07Art 25(1)(b)257
000127898

vs Saunasell OÜ

2025-10-20Art 25(1)(b)257
000124782

vs D.ELLINAS FACTORY PRODUCTS LTD

2025-06-25Art 25(1)(b)257
000124781

vs D.ELLINAS FACTORY PRODUCTS LTD

2025-06-25Art 25(1)(b)257