DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000366968-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-10-12

000114005

Contested design: 000366968-0001

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 designNo 0003669680001 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

Idento Group A/Svia PDF extraction

Denmark (DK)

Kløvermarken 19E, 7190 Billund, Denmark

Represented by

Patrade A/S

Holder · RCD owner

The Gillette Company Llcvia PDF extraction

United States (US)

One Gillette Park, Boston, Massachusetts 02127, United States of America

Represented by

Allen & Overy Llp

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the toothbrush-head design was entirely dictated by technical function, especially the bristles, head shape, shaft, shaft base and bottom connection.
  • The holder replied that several visible features reflected aesthetic choices, relied on an expert report, and argued the applicant had not proved exclusive technical determination.
  • The Invalidity Division found that the bristles, overall shape, shaft and shaft base were not shown to be solely technically dictated, even if they served functional purposes.
  • Only the bottom perimeter and internal connection parts were considered purely functional; because not all appearance features were exclusively functional, the invalidity application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI

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

04.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000121258

vs Shenzhen Changyu Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-04-08Art 25(1)(b)047
000010739

vs Unicorn Cosmetics Limited

2018-04-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)047
000010738

vs Unicorn Cosmetics Limited

2018-04-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)047
000010737

vs Unicorn Cosmetics Limited

2018-04-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)047
000131844

vs Nanchang Wangxing Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)045
000131548

vs Wenwei Ding

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)045
000130166

vs Nanchang Wangxing Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)045
000131585

vs NOVOWISE LTD

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)045