DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002211086-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-03-04

000116730

Contested design: 002211086-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 002211086-0002 is rejected. 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)

Patent

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 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity under Articles 25(1)(a) and 25(1)(b), arguing the design was not a unitary product, lacked individual character over US D493,257 S, and was technically dictated.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found the seven views consistently depicted one cosmetic skin treatment apparatus and refused to reopen registration-stage formal representation issues in invalidity proceedings.
  • It held the patent materials did not show all essential features were solely technically dictated and that the prior dental floss dispenser created a different overall impression on the informed user.
  • The application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder's costs.

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
000116711

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