Invalidity · first instance · 2022-11-22
000116709
Contested design: 003423060-0002
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No. 003423060-0002 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 design No 003423060-0002 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
Beurer GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Söflinger Str. 218, 89077, Ulm, Germany
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
FOREO AB
Sweden (SE)
Karlavägen 41, 11434 Stockholm, Sweden
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
facial cleansing and massage device
002816702-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-10-21
facial cleansing and massage device
002211086-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2013-04-10
international patent application for a skin cleanser
PCT/IB2014/000530 · disclosed 2014-07-10
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested facial cleansing device lacked novelty and individual character over earlier RCDs D1 and D2 and that its features were solely dictated by technical function in light of PCT/IB2014/000530.
- ›The holder replied that D1 fell within the grace period, the contested design differed in shape, layout and brush pattern, designer freedom was limited, and the Article 8 ground should be disregarded because it was not ticked in the form.
- ›The Division held that the reasoned statement validly raised Article 8(1), but the patent showed alternative embodiments and did not prove the contested features were solely technically dictated.
- ›The Division disregarded D1 under Article 7(2) CDR, compared the contested design with D2 alone, found substantial differences in width, nub coverage, back layout and overall appearance, and held that the design had individual character and novelty.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
- MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 000119166 vs Salon Europe Limited | 2023-06-09 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |