Invalidity · first instance · 2023-07-31
000108601
Contested design: 002526160-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application against Registered Community Design No 002526160-0001 is rejected; 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 002526160-0001 est rejetée. 2. La demanderesse supporte les frais exposés par la titulaire, fixés à 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Kappershandel B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Katernstraat 33 F/G, 1321 NC Almere, Pays Bas
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Wahl Clipper Corporation
United States (US)
PO Box 578, 2900 North Locust Street, Sterling, Illinois 61081-0578, États Unis d’Amérique
Represented by
Prior art cited (6)
Wahl hair-clipper comb part shown on online product pages and video
YouTube / online websites · disclosed 2010-06-08
Wahl hair-clipper comb part shown in price list, websites and video
YouTube / online websites · disclosed 2010-07-22
Babyliss hair-clipper design cited from Google and webshop results
Google Images / Babyliss / Amazon
Babyliss hair-clipper design cited from Google and webshop results
Google Images / Babyliss / Amazon
Babyliss hair-clipper design cited from Google and webshop results
Google Images / Babyliss / Amazon
Wahl clipper clips shown on the holder's online store and Amazon pages
WAH 3173-500 · Wayback Machine / Amazon · disclosed 2006-11-10
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued the contested clipper-comb part was technically dictated and lacked novelty and individual character over earlier Wahl and Babyliss disclosures D1 to D5.
- ›The holder replied that only the lower comb part was protected, several features were not purely technical, and the contested design created a distinct overall impression from the cited prior designs.
- ›The Division accepted D1 and D2 as disclosed, rejected D3 to D5 for insufficient proof of disclosure, and treated Annex 5 as inadmissible new prior designs not tied to the original nullity application.
- ›Focusing on the non-functional oval feature on the lower comb, the Division found the contested design differed clearly from D1 and D2 and therefore had individual character and, a fortiori, novelty.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberJessica N. LEWIS
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | 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 |
| 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 |
| 000119166 vs Salon Europe Limited | 2023-06-09 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |