DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015085909-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-01-28

000130702

Contested design: 015085909-0001

EUDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested EU design is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 720.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered EU design No 015085909-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 720.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €720

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Alpine Nederland B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Utrecht, Netherlands

Represented by

HGF B.V.

Holder · RCD owner

Ningbo Huaqia Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

hearing protectors

EU design registration No 015044948-0001 · EU Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2024-01-05

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character over an earlier published EU design for hearing protectors, arguing designer freedom in earmuffs was at least wide enough that the similarities were decisive.
  • The holder was invited to respond but filed no observations.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of earlier EU design No 015044948-0001 through its 5 January 2024 bulletin publication and assessed the informed user as a person familiar with earmuffs.
  • It found the shared oval ear cups, rectangular connectors, and adjustable arched headband dominated the overall impression, while size, logo, colour, and material differences were minor.
  • The application was upheld because the contested design lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b) EUDR, and the holder was ordered to pay EUR 720 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
  • 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

02.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000132104

vs Shenzhen Damai Network Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-05-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000127579

vs VICTORIA CARLOTA TERCEÑO JIMENEZ

2026-04-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000131324

vs Song Li

2026-03-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130815

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130769

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130811

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130812

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130814

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028