DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006634945-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-11-22

000116728

Contested design: 006634945-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 006634945-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant's costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Beurer GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Söflinger Str. 218, 89077 Ulm, Germany

Represented by

Busse & Partner

Holder · RCD owner

FOREO AB

Sweden (SE)

Karlavägen 41, 11434 Stockholm, Sweden

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCD

Cosmetic skin treatment apparatus; Cosmetic devices; Facial cleaners; Vibromassage devices; Massage devices

Community design registration No 002211086-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2013-04-10

Patent

skin cleanser international patent application

PCT/IB2014/000530 · disclosed 2014-07-10

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over earlier RCD No 002211086-0002 and argued the design's features were solely dictated by technical function in light of patent application PCT/IB2014/000530.
  • The holder argued the earlier design fell within the grace period because it owned it, maintained the contested design was new and had individual character, disputed disclosure proof, and said Article 8 was not properly invoked.
  • The Division held Article 8(1) could be examined but found the patent left multiple design choices open, so the contested design's features were not shown to be solely dictated by technical function.
  • The Division found the earlier RCD was disclosed before the filing date and outside the grace period, that the shared overall shape and layout dominated the differences, and therefore the contested design lacked individual character and was invalidated.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico DERRICO
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO

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
000130164

vs Moritz Neugebauer

2026-05-22REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000129241

vs Yi Wing Global Limited

2026-05-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000132044

vs Xucan XU

2026-05-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000131244

vs Shenzhen Lumei E-commerce Co., Ltd.

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000130964

vs Changde Yameixun Network Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-02-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000130541

vs Medintim SL

2025-12-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000128396

vs Koninklijke Philips N.V.

2025-12-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288
000128638

vs Xiaoyan Kang

2025-12-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)288