DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001835208-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-05-19

R1950/2019-3

Contested design: 001835208-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed; the holder is ordered to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.

Show verbatim operative text(it)

1. Il ricorso è respinto; 2. La titolare dovrà sopportare le spese sostenute dalla richiedente.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Hair Tools Limitedvia PDF extraction

United Kingdom (GB)

Head Jog House - Netherfield Road, Ravensthorpe, WF13 3JY, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, Regno Unito

Holder · RCD owner

ELCHIM S.p.A.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via del Tecchione, 4, 20098 San Giuliano Milanese (MI), Italia

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCDD1

Asciugacapelli (hair dryer), class 28.03, published 17 April 2007 in Community Designs Bulletin

RCD No 685 250-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin 2011/065 · disclosed 2007-04-17

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6Article 5Article 7(1)Article 24(2)

Argument summary

  • The design holder (appellant) argued the contested RCD has a concentrator/nozzle that is unique, a distinctively pinched body with longitudinal concavity creating two parallel ridges, characteristic raised grip dots, a sinuous handle cover, and different proportions — all producing a different overall impression from the prior art hair dryer D1.
  • The invalidity applicant filed no observations in reply.
  • The Board confirmed that the informed user is a general hair dryer user (not a professional hairdresser); designer freedom for hair dryers is relatively broad though not unlimited; the concentrator/nozzle and power cable are accessory/technical elements with limited impact on overall impression.
  • The fundamental structure (same cylindrical body with wider section at the handle junction, same pistol shape, same position of oval bumper and rectangular buttons) creates the same overall impression; differences are too minor and not sufficiently marked.
  • Appeal dismissed: the contested RCD lacks individual character over RCD No 685 250-0001.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberM. Bra
  • Registrarp.o. R. Vidal

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗