Invalidity · first instance · 2025-11-26
000127235
Contested design: 004024024-0001
Outcome
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 EU design No 0040240240001 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 Bolesic Electronic Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Shenzhen, China
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Dyson Technology Limitedvia PDF extraction
United Kingdom (GB)
Malmesbury, United Kingdom
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
hair styling appliance patent publication cited for the technical-function attack
PCT/GB2021/053420 · WIPO / PCT publication
Dyson Supersonic hand-held hair appliance shown in US patent drawings
US 9 414 662 B2 · US patent publication · disclosed 2016-08-16
Dyson Supersonic hair dryer shown in the holder's Facebook post
Facebook post from the holder's account · Facebook · disclosed 2016-04-27
Dyson Supersonic hair dryer shown in the tuexperto.com article
https://www.tuexperto.com/ · tuexperto.com · disclosed 2016-04-27
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that every visible feature of the contested hair-styler design was solely functional and that the design also lacked novelty and individual character over earlier Dyson Supersonic disclosures D1 and D2.
- ›The holder replied that aesthetic choices shaped the buttons, filter, grille, collar, handle and cable area, and that the cited earlier Dyson disclosures differed materially from the contested design.
- ›The Division held that the applicant had not shown all appearance features were solely dictated by technical function, because alternative shapes existed and visual considerations influenced the chosen forms and proportions.
- ›For novelty and individual character, the Division accepted D1 and the Facebook disclosure in Exhibit H, rejected Exhibit I as an inadequate partial representation, and found the earlier designs created a different overall impression.
- ›The invalidity application was therefore rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed costs of EUR 400.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
- MemberDimitrios ANDRIANOPOULOS
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| 000127457 vs INDUSTRIAS ORIOL 1942, S.L. | 2025-10-13 | — | 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 |