Invalidity · first instance · 2021-02-02
000108601
Contested design: 002526160-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld; Registered Community Design No 002526160-0001 is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.
Show verbatim operative text(fr)
1. La demande en nullité est accueillie. 2. Le dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré nº 002526160-0001 est déclaré nul. 3. La titulaire supporte les frais exposés par la demanderesse, fixés à 750 EUR.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Kappershandel B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Katernstraat 33 F/G, 1321 NC Almere, Pays Bas
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Wahl Clipper Corporation
United States (US)
PO Box 578, 2900 North Locust Street, Sterling, Illinois 61081-0578, États Unis d’Amérique
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
technical explanation of the Wahl Chrome Pro Premium Zwart product
www.bol.com · bol.com
Wahl product detail pages, product photos, and a YouTube video showing Wahl products
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWlhxPdBgVc · 1-800 Pet Meds / Cool Pet / YouTube / Google Images
2012 Wahl price list, email correspondence, Google results, images, and a YouTube video for Wahl products
Wahl / Google / YouTube
Google search results for Babyliss clippers limited to results before 2012-01-01
Wahl online store clips dated via Wayback Machine and undated Amazon USA pages for Wahl Professional Animal combs
Wayback Machine / Amazon USA
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(b) CDR, arguing the claimed comb-part features were dictated solely by technical function and also invoking Articles 4(1) and 8(2).
- ›Holder argued the design covered only part of the comb, that alternative clip shapes existed, and that the clip's curved form and dimensions reflected aesthetic rather than purely technical choices.
- ›The Invalidity Division found the clip, the rounded lower comb edge, and the oval marking area all served utilitarian purposes, with no convincing evidence of independent creative choices improving appearance.
- ›The application was upheld on Article 8(1) CDR grounds alone, so the contested RCD was invalidated in full and the holder was ordered to pay EUR 750.
Deciding panel
- MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
- MemberJessica LEWIS
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000130164 vs Moritz Neugebauer | 2026-05-22 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 8 |
| 000129241 vs Yi Wing Global Limited | 2026-05-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 8 |
| 000132044 vs Xucan XU | 2026-05-08 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 8 |
| 000131244 vs Shenzhen Lumei E-commerce Co., Ltd. | 2026-03-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 8 |
| 000130964 vs Changde Yameixun Network Technology Co., Ltd. | 2026-02-06 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 8 |
| 000130541 vs Medintim SL | 2025-12-23 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 8 |
| 000128396 vs Koninklijke Philips N.V. | 2025-12-15 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 8 |
| 000128638 vs Xiaoyan Kang | 2025-12-10 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 8 |