DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001787714-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-07-03

000105504

Contested design: 001787714-0004

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 001787714-0004 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 (4)

Registered RCDD1

electric toothbrush

RCD No 001532391-0001 · disclosed 2009-06-29

Registered RCDD2

electric toothbrush

RCD No 000731880-0001 · disclosed 2007-07-03

Registered RCDD3

electric toothbrush

RCD No 000101076-0001 · disclosed 2004-02-24

Registered RCDD4

electric toothbrush

RCD No 000101076-0002 · disclosed 2004-02-24

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over four earlier RCDs, arguing that the contested electric toothbrush reused known handle, button and head features.
  • Holder filed no observations in reply within the time limit.
  • The Division accepted D1 to D4 as properly disclosed but found the contested design differed in the head, bristles, button, forward-leaning upper part and overall shape.
  • Because those differences produced a different overall impression on the informed user, the application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • 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
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
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