DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004549400-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-07-22

000108861

Contested design: 004549400-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity against registered Community design No 004549400-0001 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(fr)

1. La demande en nullité à l’encontre du dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré nº 004549400-0001 est rejetée. 2. La demanderesse supporte les frais exposés par le titulaire, fixés à 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Clearsvia PDF extraction

Switzerland (CH)

Place Chauderon 20 B, 1003 Lausanne, Suisse

Holder · RCD owner

Sofiane Lozano Ibanezvia PDF extraction

France (FR)

1 rue Louis Blériot, 77400 Lagny sur Marne, France

Represented by

Fidal

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureAnnexe 1⚠ rejected as evidence

eBay offer for an ear cleaner / silicone soft earwax removal tool

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Ear-Earwax-Picking-Removal-Suck-Cleaner-Ear-Painless-Cleaning-Tool-Silicone-soft-/172927016925 · eBay · disclosed 2017-10-22

Web disclosureAnnexe 2⚠ rejected as evidence

Chevalier-Cleret press release and Google Images results for silicone personal ear cleaner

https://www.chevaliercleret.fr/information/nettoyeur-personnel-oreille-silicone.html · Chevalier-Cleret website / Google Images · disclosed 2017-11-30

Web disclosureAnnexe 3⚠ rejected as evidence

Alibaba listing for Ear Cleaner with supplier-service comments

Alibaba.com Ear Cleaner listing · Alibaba · disclosed 2016-11-09

Web disclosureAnnexe 4⚠ rejected as evidence

forum post showing a silicone soft ear pick / wax remover cleaner

http://vapingunderground.com/threads/silicone-soft-digear-tool-earpick-clean-wax-remover-cleaner.357561/ · Vaping Underground · disclosed 2017-09-21

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that four online disclosures destroyed novelty or, at least, individual character, and relied on a bailiff's report to date them.
  • The holder replied that the cited materials did not prove relevant disclosure dates, some stemmed from its own project or contractors, and grace-period protection applied.
  • The Division found Article 8(1) inadmissible because the applicant gave no supporting arguments, and held the annexes did not prove prior public disclosure under Article 7.
  • Because disclosure of the earlier designs was not established, the invalidity application based on Article 25(1)(b) with Articles 5 and 6 was rejected and costs were awarded to the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE
  • MemberJessica LEWIS
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

24.0228.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000117462

vs 4FIZJO GROUP SP. Z O.O.

2022-09-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)24, 288
000114703

vs Xin Huang

2021-07-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)24, 288
000125115

vs Mihua Li

2024-07-31Art 25(1)(b)287
000123998

vs Shenzhen First Century Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-05-16Art 25(1)(b)287
000122441

vs Piotr Malinowski

2024-05-15Art 25(1)(b)287
000120698

vs Guangdong Roman Technology Co., Ltd

2024-01-25Art 25(1)(b)287
000108601

vs Wahl Clipper Corporation

2023-07-31Art 25(1)(b)287
000120778

vs GUANGDONG HUANENGDA ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES CO.,LTD.

2023-07-17Art 25(1)(b)287