The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) recently issued Examination Decision No. 580958 regarding an invalidation request filed by J.Chersonese Limited ("Petitioner"), the rights holder of the Jimmy Choo brand, against the design patent numbered 202030510074.6. The decision declared the design patent in question completely invalid.
Leveraging precise evidence layout and rigorous design comparison demonstrations, Kangrui assisted the client in achieving a complete victory in this patent invalidation case.
The design patent involved is highly similar to the lipstick packaging design previously promoted by Jimmy Choo for its beauty line. Following the suggestions provided by the legal team after an in-depth analysis of the case and strategic formulation, the Petitioner prepared multiple media articles from fashion media websites such as Vogue, Buro, and Style in City. These articles disclosed the main views and related information of Jimmy Choo lipstick packaging products, and the publication dates shown on the websites were all prior to the filing date of the patent in question.
Regarding the public accessibility of the aforementioned evidence, the CNIPA held that:
The aforementioned websites are well-known third-party platforms in the fashion industry that periodically update corresponding products and articles for public information, demonstrating a strong intent for publicity and promotion. Furthermore, there is no evidence indicating a stake or interest between them and the Petitioner. The relevant disclosure times possess a high degree of probability and can serve as prior designs to evaluate the patent in question.
Regarding the manner of using the aforementioned evidence, the CNIPA determined that:
Compared with the combination of two pieces of evidence, given that the spherical designs and the front designs of the outer tubes are basically the same, the points of difference are insufficient to cause a significant difference in the overall visual effect. Therefore, compared with the combination of prior designs, the patent in question does not possess a significant difference and does not comply with the provisions of Article 23, Paragraph 2 of the Patent Law.
Kangrui lawyers successfully represented this case, achieving the comprehensive invalidation of a design patent that plagiarized a prior disclosed design. This provides a practical reference model for the flexible application of non-patent literature as an evidence type in similar design patent invalidation cases.