Invalidity · first instance · 2021-08-26
000113143
Contested design: 005636974-0001
Outcome
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 0056369740001 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
Foreo Ltd.via PDF extraction
Hong Kong (HK)
Chai Wan Kok St. No 66-82, Unit H2, 18/F, Tsuen Wan 999077, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Shenzhen Hongwang Nicemay Electric Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
1-4/F, B Bldg, No. 3, Lane 3, Jiazitang Road, Jiazitang Community, Gongming, Office, Guangming New District Shenzhen, People's Republic of China
Prior art cited (4)
Foreo Luna facial cleansing device
Community design No 0022110860001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2013-04-10
Foreo Luna Mini facial cleansing device
Community design No 0022110860002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2013-04-10
Foreo Luna 2 review showing the device design
http://www.lolassecretbeautyblog.com/2016/04/foreo-luna-2-for-combination-skin-review.html · www.lolassecretbeautyblog.com · disclosed 2016-04-14
Foreo Luna Mini review showing the device design
www.thedieline.com · disclosed 2014-08-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over D1 to D4 and for conflict with its earlier registered designs under Article 25(1)(d).
- ›Holder argued the contested design differed in shape, brush arrangement, lateral profile, and top and bottom views, and denied that Articles 7 or 25(1)(d) supported invalidity.
- ›The Division held Article 25(1)(d) was inapplicable because D1 and D2 had been published before the contested filing date, but accepted D1 to D4 as prior disclosures for the novelty and individual-character analysis.
- ›The Division found clear differences in the brush configuration, back and lateral appearance, button, and base, so the contested design had individual character and novelty and the application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000125115 vs Mihua Li | 2024-07-31 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |
| 000123998 vs Shenzhen First Century Technology Co., Ltd. | 2024-05-16 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |
| 000122441 vs Piotr Malinowski | 2024-05-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |
| 000120698 vs Guangdong Roman Technology Co., Ltd | 2024-01-25 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |
| 000119078 vs Sijie XU | 2023-10-25 | — | Art 25(1)(d) | 28 | 7 |
| 000108601 vs Wahl Clipper Corporation | 2023-07-31 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |
| 000120778 vs GUANGDONG HUANENGDA ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES CO.,LTD. | 2023-07-17 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |
| 000120758 vs Zhaojie Zhang | 2023-07-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |