DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004554822-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-03-05

000103459

Contested design: 004554822-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 004554822-0001 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

Dyson Technology Limited

United Kingdom (GB)

Tetbury Hill, Malmesbury, Wiltshire, SN16 0RP, United Kingdom

Represented by

Gowling WLG (UK) LLP

Holder · RCD owner

Guangzhou Milin Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

3F, Block E, Dalangqishe Industrial Area, Shijing Street, Baiyun District, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China

Represented by

Cabinet Roman

Prior art cited (3)

Prior usedesign 1⚠ rejected as evidence

Hairdryer allegedly shown in a brochure and exhibited by Ningbo Riwei Electrical Appliances Co. Ltd at the Canton Fair in Guangzhou

Canton Fair (China Import and Export Fair), Guangzhou · disclosed 2016-10-15

Prior usedesign 2⚠ rejected as evidence

Hairdryer allegedly exhibited by Shanghai Riwa Electrical Appliances Co. Ltd at AWE Shanghai World Exhibition

AWE (Appliance and Electronics World Expo), Shanghai · disclosed 2017-03-09

Prior usedesign 3⚠ rejected as evidence

Hairdryer allegedly exhibited by Cixi Aunick Electronics Co. Ltd at the Canton Fair in Guangzhou

Canton Fair (China Import and Export Fair), Guangzhou · disclosed 2017-04-15

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on three earlier hairdryer designs allegedly disclosed before the priority date.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found the photos and affidavit insufficient to prove prior disclosure under Article 7 CDR, and it also noted inconsistencies in the evidence for design 1.
  • The application was rejected, and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed representation costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberLudmila ČELISOVA
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
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 rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000105503

vs Koninklijke Philips N.V.

2019-06-25Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000011128

vs Koninklijke Philips N.V.

2019-05-06Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000010612

vs FIONNA COSMETICS EOOD

2018-12-10Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000010870

vs REFAN BULGARIA EOOD

2018-10-31Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000010869

vs REFAN BULGARIA EOOD

2018-10-31Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000010680

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

2018-06-22Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000010592

vs KUBI, spol. s.r.o.

2018-04-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288