DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015021289-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-02-10

000129801

Contested design: 015021289-0001

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity of EU design No 015021289-0001 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Se desestima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del diseño de la UE registrado n.º 015021289-0001. 2. Se condena al solicitante a que sufrague las costas del titular.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Xiaoming TANvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Chenzhou City, Hunan Province, China

Represented by

Qiang Zhou

Holder · RCD owner

Jesús Pérez Elíasvia PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Dos Hermanas, España

Prior art cited (3)

National designAnexo 1⚠ rejected as evidence

Chinese design relied on against novelty and individual character

CN 307313334 S · CNIPA

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

screenshot allegedly showing online disclosure of the same Chinese design

PatentAnexo 2

United States design patent relied on against novelty and individual character

US D1014854S · United States patent database · disclosed 2024-02-13

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant claimed the contested electric shaver-head design lacked novelty and individual character, relying on a Chinese design extract, a US design patent, and an additional screenshot said to show prior disclosure.
  • The holder was invited to file observations on the invalidity application but did not respond.
  • The Division held the CNIPA extract could not be taken into account because it was incomplete and untranslated into Spanish, and the screenshot lacked source information needed to prove internet disclosure.
  • It accepted that the US design patent was published on 13 February 2024, but that date postdated the contested design's filing date of 12 May 2023.
  • Because no earlier disclosure was proven under Article 7, the invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder's costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberCarlos MATEO PÉREZ
  • MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

28.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000130163

vs LAHC US 1 LLC

2026-03-06Art 25(1)(b)287
000127235

vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

2025-11-26Art 25(1)(b)287
000127457

vs INDUSTRIAS ORIOL 1942, S.L.

2025-10-13Art 25(1)(b)287
000130164

vs Moritz Neugebauer

2026-05-22REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)285
000129241

vs Yi Wing Global Limited

2026-05-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)285
000132044

vs Xucan XU

2026-05-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)285
000131244

vs Shenzhen Lumei E-commerce Co., Ltd.

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)285
000130964

vs Changde Yameixun Network Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-02-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)285