Invalidity · first instance · 2024-04-25
000122914
Contested design: 002778175-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application 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 002778175-0001 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
Fitzner GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Schillerstraße 53, 32361 Preußisch-Oldendorf, Germany
Holder · RCD owner
JSP Limited
United Kingdom (GB)
Worsham Mill, Minster Lovell, Oxford OX29 0TA, United Kingdom
Represented by
Prior art cited (10)
protective helmet (hardcapA1+ model - Standard Peak)
www.jsp.co.uk · Internet Archive Wayback Machine
protective helmet (hardcapA1+ model - Short Peak)
www.jsp.co.uk · Internet Archive Wayback Machine
protective helmet (hardcapA1+ model - Micro Peak)
www.jsp.co.uk · Internet Archive Wayback Machine
protective helmet
www.jsp.co.uk · Internet Archive Wayback Machine
protective helmet with arched recesses above the ears
The RoSPA occupational safety and health journal · disclosed 2010-08-01
protective helmet
www.voss-helme.de · Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2015-07-11
protective helmet
https://www.amazon.de · Amazon
cap model 'First Base 3' Classic
catalogue · disclosed 2011-01-01
cap model 'First Base 3' Xtra
catalogue · disclosed 2011-01-01
cap model 'First Base 3' Elite
catalogue · disclosed 2011-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued the contested protective-helmet design lacked individual character over earlier cap and bump-cap designs, especially D1 to D10, and said the visible seams were technically dictated.
- ›The holder replied that the relevant sector is safety headwear, not ordinary baseball caps, and that designers retain meaningful freedom in panel layout, peak shape, and other visual features.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of D1 to D6 and D8 to D10, but found D7 unproven because the Amazon screenshots did not show when the product was first made available to the public.
- ›On the merits, the Division found the contested design's panel number, arrangement, and visible differences created a different overall impression on the informed user despite the shared baseball-cap shape.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected because the contested design retained individual character under Article 6(1)(b) CDR.
Deciding panel
- MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
- MemberChiara BORACE
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000123935 vs Crocs, Inc. | 2024-11-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000123916 vs Crocs, Inc. | 2024-11-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000120862 vs Dongguan Zhicheng Lighting Co., Ltd. | 2024-11-06 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000122915 vs JSP Limited | 2024-04-25 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000121459 vs Birkenstock IP GmbH | 2024-04-09 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000121479 vs Birkenstock IP GmbH | 2024-04-08 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000121478 vs Birkenstock IP GmbH | 2024-04-04 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000121019 vs PIKOLINOS DISEÑO,S.L.U. | 2024-03-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |