DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001316483-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-03-19

000010387

Contested design: 001316483-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 001316483-0001 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

Shih Chieh Hung

Taiwan (TW)

3F, No 17, Hou Street, Xindian District, New Taipei City, Taiwan (ROC)

Represented by

Cabinet Beau De Lomenie

Aurélia Marie

Holder · RCD owner

Curve-Ovia PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

Tongersesteenweg 111, 3800 Sint-Truiden, Belgium

Prior art cited (1)

Patent

hair comb designs disclosed in a Taiwanese patent

Taiwanese patent No I 428423 · Taiwan patent publication · disclosed 2010-12-16

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over a Taiwanese patent disclosure and argued that the comb design was solely dictated by technical function.
  • The holder disputed the untranslated patent evidence, denied that the disclosure would have become known in the EU, and maintained that the prior and contested combs created different overall impressions.
  • The Invalidity Division accepted that the patent publication was disclosed before filing, but found the compared designs not identical and held that the contested comb retained individual character.
  • It also found the applicant had not proved that the design's essential features were solely dictated by technical function, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

28.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000105504

vs Koninklijke Philips N.V.

2019-07-03Invalidity application rejected286
000105503

vs Koninklijke Philips N.V.

2019-06-25Invalidity application rejected286
000011128

vs Koninklijke Philips N.V.

2019-05-06Invalidity application rejected286
000103459

vs Guangzhou Milin Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.

2019-03-05Invalidity application rejected286
000010612

vs FIONNA COSMETICS EOOD

2018-12-10Invalidity application rejected286
000010870

vs REFAN BULGARIA EOOD

2018-10-31Invalidity application rejected286
000010869

vs REFAN BULGARIA EOOD

2018-10-31Invalidity application rejected286
000010680

vs Marba Sp. z o.o. Sp. j.

2018-06-22Invalidity application rejected286