Invalidity · first instance · 2025-10-13
000127457
Contested design: 015062669-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application against registered EU design No 015062669-0001 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Se desestima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del diseño de la UE registrado n.º 015062669-0001. 2. Se condena al solicitante a que sufrague las costas de la titular, fijadas en 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Asuer, S.A.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Leioa (Vizcaya), España
Represented by
Maria Antonia Ezcurra Zufia
Holder · RCD owner
Industrias Oriol 1942, S.L.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Barcelona, España
Represented by
Prior art cited (6)
instruction manual showing an alleged earlier hair dryer design
instruction manual
two emails referring to features of an alleged earlier hair dryer
emails dated 24/03/2024 and 31/03/2024
email referring to an alleged earlier hair dryer design
email · disclosed 2024-03-24
sale contract showing an alleged earlier hair dryer design
sale contract · disclosed 2024-03-24
video screenshots allegedly showing an earlier hair dryer design
video screenshots
four emails allegedly relating to an earlier hair dryer design
emails
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested hair-dryer design lacked novelty because the same design had been shown to third parties before filing through commercial documents, emails, a manual, and video screenshots.
- ›The holder replied that the evidence was inconsistent, insufficiently dated, partly unsigned or blurred, and did not reliably identify or prove public disclosure of the alleged earlier design.
- ›The Division held that none of the annexes, individually or together, proved effective public disclosure under Article 7 because key images, dates, sources, or precise visual features were missing or unverifiable.
- ›Because prior disclosure was not established, the Division did not need to assess novelty or individual character on the merits and rejected the invalidity application.
- ›Costs were awarded against the applicant, with the holder's recoverable representation costs fixed at EUR 400.
Deciding panel
- MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
- MemberCarlos MATEO PÉREZ
- MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esSpanish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000130163 vs LAHC US 1 LLC | 2026-03-06 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |
| 000129801 vs Jesus Perez Elias | 2026-02-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |
| 000127235 vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED | 2025-11-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 7 |
| 000130164 vs Moritz Neugebauer | 2026-05-22 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 5 |
| 000129241 vs Yi Wing Global Limited | 2026-05-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 5 |
| 000132044 vs Xucan XU | 2026-05-08 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 5 |
| 000131244 vs Shenzhen Lumei E-commerce Co., Ltd. | 2026-03-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 5 |
| 000130964 vs Changde Yameixun Network Technology Co., Ltd. | 2026-02-06 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 28 | 5 |