Invalidity · first instance · 2024-04-25
000122915
Contested design: 002778175-0002
Outcome
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 002778175-0002 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 (Hardcap A1+ model)
www.jsp.co.uk · Internet Archive Wayback Machine
protective helmet (Hardcap A1+ model)
www.jsp.co.uk · Internet Archive Wayback Machine
protective helmet (Hardcap A1+ model)
www.jsp.co.uk · Internet Archive Wayback Machine
protective helmet (Hardcap A1+ model)
www.jsp.co.uk · Internet Archive Wayback Machine
protective helmet with arched recesses above the ears
The RoSPA occupational safety and health journal
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
First Base 3 · catalogue
cap model 'First Base 3' Xtra
First Base 3 · catalogue
cap model 'First Base 3' Elite
First Base 3 · catalogue
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued lack of individual character, relying on earlier baseball-cap and protective-helmet disclosures, including the holder's own Hardcap A1+ web pages.
- ›The holder disputed the relevant sector and maintained the informed user concerned safety headwear, with meaningful design freedom in panel arrangement, peak shape and other visible features.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of D1-D6 and D8-D10, rejected D7 for lack of objective disclosure date evidence, and treated Annexes 1 and 2 as contextual history rather than invoked prior designs.
- ›Comparing the designs, the Division found noticeable differences in panel number, arrangement and visible features, so the contested design created a different overall impression and retained individual character.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
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 |
| 000122914 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 |