Invalidity · first instance · 2023-06-09
000119166
Contested design: 008780514-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application 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 008780514-0001 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
GA.MA S.R.L.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Sant'Alberto 1714, 40018 San Pietro in Casale (BO), Italy
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Salon Europe Limited
United Kingdom (GB)
27 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JQ, United Kingdom
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
'IQ perfetto' hair dryer
International design registration No DM/103 462 · International Designs Bulletin No 44/2018
Grey version of the 'IQ perfetto' hair dryer
https://www.gamaprofessional.com/en/ · Internet Archive / gamaprofessional.com · disclosed 2019-11-25
White version of the 'IQ perfetto' hair dryer
https://www.youtube.com · YouTube · disclosed 2020-01-08
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant argued the contested hair-dryer part lacked novelty and individual character over its earlier IQ perfetto design disclosed through an international design registration and online materials.
- ›Holder said the protected subject matter was a removable hair-dryer body assembly, designer freedom was somewhat limited, and the removable casings, rings, proportions and colour contrast created a different overall impression.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of three prior designs D1 to D3, identified the informed user as a hair-dryer user, and found designer freedom limited mainly by the product's general structure but not severely constrained.
- ›Comparing the designs, the Division found the contested design's proportions, ring shape, casing structure, grill and other visible features sufficient to create a different overall impression.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
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 |
| 000119939 vs 900 | 2023-06-09 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |