DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006658688-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-12-19

000119138

Contested design: 006658688-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay 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 0066586880002 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 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(a)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over Chinese design CN 305104128 S and argued the registration showed two inconsistent designs, so it failed Article 3(a).
  • Holder argued the contested nozzle remained valid because its transparent tube, opaque collar, internal tubes and proportions created a distinct overall impression, and view 2.7 was a sectional view.
  • The Division held view 2.7 still represented the same product and the Article 25(1)(a) challenge did not show the registration protected more than one design.
  • It accepted disclosure of the Chinese design but found visible differences in transparency, collar structure, internal tubes and proportions, so the contested design had individual character and was not identical.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and 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
000119103

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