DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015039332-0007

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-05-26

000129483

Contested design: 015039332-0007

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity against registered EU design No 015039332-0007 is rejected.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen EU-Geschmacksmusters Nr. 015039332-0007 wird zurückgewiesen.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Fuzhou Qisuo Advertising Planning Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

Fuzhou, Fujian, China

Holder · RCD owner

Oro-Kong GmbH

Germany (DE)

Ruppach-Goldhausen, Deutschland

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Undated internet extract showing drawers with storage boxes.

https://www.simple-joy.de · simple-joy.de

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Fourteen screenshots of Facebook posts showing storage-box sets.

Simple Joy Deutschland · Facebook · disclosed 2021-12-20

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(1)Article 7

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested design lacked novelty and individual character because the holder had earlier promoted identical storage-box sets online and on Facebook.
  • Applicant also argued the filing was not a design under Article 3(1) because it sought to monopolise a pre-known concept of foldable textile drawer boxes.
  • Holder filed no timely observations and later submitted observations together with a request for restitutio in integrum.
  • The Division found the representations clearly showed a set of storage boxes and therefore a protectable design rather than a mere abstract idea or use condition.
  • The Division held the website and Facebook materials did not adequately prove public disclosure of earlier designs, so the invalidity grounds failed and the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberIvo TSENKOV
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberIvan PRANDZHEV

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

07.07

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129481

vs Oro-Kong GmbH

2026-05-27Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)079
000129501

vs Oro-Kong GmbH

2026-05-26Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)079
000129482

vs Oro-Kong GmbH

2026-05-26Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)079
000129502

vs Oro-Kong GmbH

2026-05-26Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)079
000129503

vs Oro-Kong GmbH

2026-05-26Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)079
000129484

vs Oro-Kong GmbH

2026-05-26Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)079
000130704

vs Shenzhen Yisi Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-05-22Art 25(1)(b)077
000131705

vs DETECTALIA EUROPE, S.L.U.

2026-05-14Art 25(1)(b)077