DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002211086-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-03-04

000116711

Contested design: 002211086-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 002211086-0001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Beurer GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Söflinger Str. 218, 89077 Ulm, Germany

Represented by

Busse & Partner

Holder · RCD owner

Foreo Ltd.via PDF extraction

Hong Kong (HK)

Chai Wan Kok St. No 66-82, Unit H2, 18/F, Tsuen Wan 999077, The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China

Prior art cited (2)

National design

dental floss dispenser

US D493,257 S · USPTO patent database · disclosed 2004-07-20

Patent

skin cleanser

PCT/IB2014/000530 · WIPO patent database · disclosed 2014-07-10

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(a)Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 8(1)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character over US design patent US D493,257 S, and also argued the registration did not show a single product within Article 3(a).
  • Applicant further argued the design's shape was technically dictated by features described in patent application PCT/IB2014/000530; the holder filed no observations.
  • The Division found the seven views consistently depicted one cosmetic skin treatment apparatus and that the patent evidence did not show all essential appearance features were solely dictated by technical function.
  • The earlier US design patent was disclosed before filing, but the differing bristles, ribs, controls, profile, and rear features created a different overall impression, so the application was rejected in full.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
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
000116730

vs FOREO Ltd.

2022-03-04Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)289
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
000120758

vs Zhaojie Zhang

2023-07-13Art 25(1)(b)287