DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006658688-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-12-19

000119103

Contested design: 006658688-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against RCD No 006658688-0001 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 006658688-0001 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

Vossius & Partner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte mbBvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Siebertstrasse 4, 81675 München, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Dyson Technology Limitedvia PDF extraction

United Kingdom (GB)

Tetbury Hill, Malmesbury Wiltshire SN16 0RP, United Kingdom

Prior art cited (1)

National design

crevice nozzle for a vacuum cleaner

CN 305104128 S (application No 201830215493.X) · China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) · disclosed 2019-04-09

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(a)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that Chinese design CN 305104128 S destroyed novelty and individual character and that view 1.7 showed a second design, so the registration failed Article 3(a).
  • The holder replied that view 1.7 was a sectional view and that the transparent suction pipe, opaque collar and visible inner tubes gave the contested design a different overall impression.
  • The Division found the registered views consistently depicted one crevice nozzle and accepted disclosure of the Chinese design, but held that material contrast, collar proportions and inner tubes were noticeable differences.
  • The application was rejected because the contested design had individual character and was not identical to the prior design; the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL

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

15.05

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000119138

vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

2023-12-19Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)159
000117532

vs Suzhou Dibea Electrical Technology Co., Ltd.

2022-09-21Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)159
000112341

vs Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH

2021-08-02Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)159
000112381

vs Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH

2021-08-02Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)159
000112382

vs Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH

2021-07-26Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)159
000112383

vs Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH

2021-07-26Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)159
000124955

vs Terence A.H.F. Noppe h.o.d.n. EasySwift

2025-09-05Art 25(1)(b)157
000122714

vs LEIFHEIT AG

2024-06-21Art 25(1)(b)157