Invalidity · first instance · 2026-05-26
000129484
Contested design: 015039332-0014
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered EU design No. 015039332-00014 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen EU-Geschmacksmusters Nr. 015039332-00014 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.
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)
undated website extract showing drawers containing storage boxes
https://www.simple-joy.de · simple-joy.de
Facebook posts from the account "Simple Joy Deutschland" showing storage boxes
Facebook account "Simple Joy Deutschland" · disclosed 2021-12-20
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested set of storage boxes lacked novelty and individual character because the holder had earlier promoted identical box sets online, and it also claimed the filing did not constitute a design under Article 3(1).
- ›The holder filed no observations within the extended deadlines; it later submitted observations out of time and requested restitutio in integrum.
- ›The Division held that the registered views clearly depicted a set of four storage boxes, so the filing was a design rather than an attempt to monopolise an abstract storage concept.
- ›It found the website extract and Facebook screenshots insufficient to prove prior disclosure because the source, URL linkage, and publication circumstances were not reliably shown on the evidence itself; the invalidity application was therefore rejected.
- ›The applicant was ordered to pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400, and the restitutio request did not need to be examined because the holder prevailed.
Deciding panel
- MemberIvo TSENKOV
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberIvan PRANDZHEV
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129481 vs Oro-Kong GmbH | 2026-05-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 07 | 9 |
| 000129501 vs Oro-Kong GmbH | 2026-05-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 07 | 9 |
| 000129482 vs Oro-Kong GmbH | 2026-05-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 07 | 9 |
| 000129502 vs Oro-Kong GmbH | 2026-05-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 07 | 9 |
| 000129503 vs Oro-Kong GmbH | 2026-05-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 07 | 9 |
| 000129483 vs Oro-Kong GmbH | 2026-05-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 07 | 9 |
| 000130704 vs Shenzhen Yisi Technology Co., Ltd. | 2026-05-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000131705 vs DETECTALIA EUROPE, S.L.U. | 2026-05-14 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |