DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003789668-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-11-22

000116747

Contested design: 003789668-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder’s fixed costs of EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 003789668-0001 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

Busse & Partner

Holder · RCD owner

FOREO AB

Sweden (SE)

Karlavägen 41, 11434 Stockholm, Sweden

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCD

Massage devices, facial cleaners, cosmetic skin treatment apparatus, cosmetic devices, vibromassage devices

Community design registration No 002816702-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-10-21

Patent

international patent application for a skin cleanser

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

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicant alleged the contested facial cleansing device lacked novelty and individual character over earlier RCD No 002816702-0001 and that its features were solely dictated by technical function in patent application PCT/IB2014/000530.
  • Holder replied that it owned the earlier design, the designs differed in shape and layout, designer freedom was limited, Article 8 should be disregarded procedurally, and the contested design remained new and distinctive.
  • The Division found the patent application did not show the contested appearance was solely function-driven, because multiple alternative embodiments were possible and non-technical visual choices could not be excluded.
  • The earlier RCD was validly disclosed, but the compared designs created different overall impressions due to thickness, overall shape, back waves, and base differences; the invalidity application was rejected in full.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ

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
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
000119166

vs Salon Europe Limited

2023-06-09Art 25(1)(b)287