DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015063987-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-12-15

000127997

Contested design: 015063987-0001

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application 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 015063987-0001 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

ASIN B0CRXVXH1Y · Amazon.de

Web disclosureAnnex 2⚠ rejected as evidence

Ansobea Handlauf Geländer für Treppen Innen und Außn 55 cm

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

Web disclosureAnnex 3⚠ rejected as evidence

Ogimeka Treppengeländer Innen

Amazon.de

Web disclosureAnnex 4⚠ rejected as evidence

T-ZBDZ Treppengeländer Innen Schwarz

Amazon.de

Web disclosureAnnex 5⚠ rejected as evidence

SCGSJZH Geländer Treppen Schwarz

Amazon.de

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant alleged the contested stair handrail profile lacked novelty because identical designs had been offered on Amazon before 19 June 2024.
  • The holder argued some cited Amazon offers were its own authorised disclosures within the grace period and the remaining items did not prove lack of novelty.
  • The Division found Annexes 1, 3, 4 and 5 did not prove disclosure dates and Annex 2 did not clearly identify a single complete prior design.
  • The Article 6 ground was inadmissible for lack of supporting reasoning, and the Article 5 challenge failed because disclosure under Article 7 was not proven.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

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
000127959

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