DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007521901-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-01-25

000120698

Contested design: 007521901-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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 0075219010001 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, Italy

Represented by

Accapi s.r.l.

Holder · RCD owner

Guangdong Roman Technology Co., Ltd

China (CN)

8 Qifeng Road, Baidi community, Zhangmutou town, Dongguan City, Guangdong Province, China

Prior art cited (2)

International designD1

hair drier / 'IQ Perfetto' hair dryer

DM/103 462 · International Designs Bulletin (WIPO)

Web disclosureD2

IQ hair dryer

YouTube video 'gama.professional – Master iQ perfetto'; https://www.gameprofessional.com · YouTube and Internet Archive copy of gameprofessional.com · disclosed 2019-09-12

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant claimed the contested hair dryer lacked individual character over its earlier IQ Perfetto design disclosed through an international design registration and online materials before the priority date.
  • The holder argued the overall impressions differed and that technical and functional constraints limited design freedom for hand-held hair dryers.
  • The Invalidity Division accepted disclosure of D1 and D2, found designer freedom not severely limited, and held the differing handle angle, barrel shape, grills, lines, buttons, and other details changed the overall impression.
  • The invalidity ground under Article 25(1)(b) CDR failed, so the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberIneta GALUBICKE
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO

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

28.03

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
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
000119939

vs 900

2023-06-09Art 25(1)(b)287