DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001787714-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-05-06

000011128

Contested design: 001787714-0003

CDR

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 001787714-0003 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

HappyBrush GmbH

Germany (DE)

Amalienstr. 71, 80799 München, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Koninklijke Philips N.V.

Netherlands (NL)

High Tech Campus 5, 5656 AE Eindhoven, Netherlands

Prior art cited (5)

Registered RCDD1

electric toothbrush

RCD No 001532391-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2009-06-29

Registered RCDD2

electric toothbrush

RCD No 000731880-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2007-07-03

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

electric toothbrush shown on Amazon and Philips websites

Philips Sonicare HX6511/02 · Amazon.co.uk; Philips.co.uk · disclosed 2010-04-15

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

electric toothbrush shown on Argos and Philips websites

Philips Sonicare HX6511/50 · Argos.co.uk; Philips.com

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

other electric toothbrush products with user comments dated 2008, 2009 and 2010

Amazon.de listings · Amazon.de

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over two earlier RCDs and several alleged internet disclosures of Philips electric toothbrushes.
  • The holder argued the contested design remained novel and individually distinctive, stressing its continuous transition from a rectangular handle body to a cylindrical upper portion.
  • The Division accepted disclosure only for earlier RCDs D1 and D2, rejected the late-added and poor-quality website evidence, and found designer freedom broad in the electric-toothbrush sector.
  • Because the contested design's shape, decoration and button details created a different overall impression from D1 and D2, the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO

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
000103459

vs Guangzhou Milin Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.

2019-03-05Invalidity 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