DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008881239-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-05-16

000123998

Contested design: 008881239-0001

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 008881239-0001 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

Shenzhen Baishibang Technology Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

C2-507, 5/F, BLDG C, Bantian Int. Center,No. 5, Huancheng South Rd., Bantian St., Longgang Dist, Shenzhen, 518000, China

Represented by

Isabelle Bertaux

Holder · RCD owner

Shenzhen First Century Technology Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

A2209-1, Building 2, Phase II, Logistics Zone, No. 1, Huanan Avenue, Longgang District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure

Philips QP66 Razor / Trimmer

https://amazon.de (ASIN B0771X3YSV) · amazon.de · disclosed 2018-03-28

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on an earlier Amazon listing for a Philips QP66 razor/trimmer comb disclosed before the filing date.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted the Amazon listing as prior disclosure but found several visible differences that created a different overall impression on the informed user.
  • The invoked Article 25(1)(b) ground failed because the contested design was considered both individually distinctive and new; the application was rejected and costs awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberEmmanuel COLLIN
  • 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
000122441

vs Piotr Malinowski

2024-05-15Art 25(1)(b)287
000120698

vs Guangdong Roman Technology Co., Ltd

2024-01-25Art 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