DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008275259-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-06-09

000119939

Contested design: 008275259-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against Registered Community Design No 008275259-0001 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs, fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(fr)

1. La demande en nullité à l’encontre du dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré nº 008275259-0001 est rejetée. 2. La demanderesse supporte les frais de la titulaire, fixés à 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Laurie Anne Marie Miasvia PDF extraction

Hong Kong (HK)

No. 83A&B Tong Fuk Village, Lantau, New Territories, Hong Kong, China

Represented by

De Clercq & Partners

Holder · RCD owner

900 SAS, société par actions simplifiéevia PDF extraction

France (FR)

11 Rue Monsigny, 75002 Paris France

Represented by

Catherine Huynh

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureAnnexe 1

Wikipedia page on shaving soap showing soap sticks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaving_soap · Wayback Machine / Wikipedia · disclosed 2012-11-15

Web disclosureAnnexe 2

Doug H. blog post commenting on soap sticks

Doug H. blog · disclosed 2014-08-27

Web disclosureAnnexe 3

Raven solid soap stick advertised online

Wayback Machine · disclosed 2020-08-08

Web disclosureAnnexe 4

Browns solid soap sticks sold online

https://innoway.co.nz/other-cleaning-products/ · Wayback Machine / innoway.co.nz · disclosed 2016-03-24

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the contested soap-stick design lacked novelty and individual character in light of earlier online disclosures of shaving and solid soap sticks.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted the cited internet disclosures, especially Annex 2, as prior public disclosures but found the contested design created a different overall impression.
  • The invalidity application was rejected because the contested design retained individual character and, a fortiori, novelty.

Deciding panel

  • MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
  • MemberJessica N. LEWIS
  • MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

28.02

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