DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015107062-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-04-22

000131724

Contested design: 015107062-0003

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay 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 015107062-0003 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

Liyun Qianvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Holder · RCD owner

Shenzhen Shuangzhi E-commerce Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Represented by

Qiang Zhou

Prior art cited (3)

Registered RCDprior design 1

baking sheets

EU design registration No 015011553-0001 · EU Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2023-03-06

Registered RCDprior design 2

paper baking sheets

EU design registration No 008937502-0001 · EU Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2022-04-29

Web disclosureprior design 3

baking paper offered on Amazon with ASIN B09QX8TY1X

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09QX8TY1X/ · Internet Archive / Amazon · disclosed 2022-01-21

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested baking paper design was invalid for lack of novelty and individual character and that its features were solely dictated by technical function.
  • It relied on two earlier EU design registrations and an archived Amazon product page, while the holder filed no observations in reply.
  • The Division found the applicant had not proved that all appearance features were exclusively functional and accepted disclosure of the cited prior designs.
  • It held that the rectangular proportions and other visual differences gave the contested design a different overall impression from each prior design and that none was identical to it.
  • The invalidity application was therefore rejected in full, with costs awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberCarlos MATEO PÉREZ
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberGailé SAKALAITE-ORLOVSKIENE

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

05.06

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000130181

vs Shenzhen Zongyuan Technology Co., Ltd

2025-11-24Art 25(1)(b)057
000121025

vs FOLPOL ROBERT BARCZYK, JACEK CYGAN

2024-03-05Art 25(1)(b)057
000111021

vs FOLPOL ROBERT BARCZYK, JACEK CYGAN

2021-04-21Art 25(1)(b)057
000110988

vs FOLPOL ROBERT BARCZYK, JACEK CYGAN

2021-04-21Art 25(1)(b)057
000111261

vs FOLPOL ROBERT BARCZYK, JACEK CYGAN

2020-10-26Art 25(1)(b)057
000131631

vs Shenzhen Shuangzhi E-commerce Co., Ltd.

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)055
000131630

vs Shenghui Wei

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)055
000127715

vs Meirong Huang

2025-05-23Art 25(1)(b)055