Patentee: Our client

Requestor for invalidation: a natural person

Name of invention involved: Facial Cleansing Instrument

Results of the case

The design patent of a facial cleansing instrument was challenged by a natural person. Our firm represent the client in this case.

After the trial, the examination authority of CNIPA declared that our client's design patent No. 2018305****** was valid. Our patent attorney accurately defended the invalidation and successfully safeguarded the rights of our client.

Details of the case

This invalidation request case involves an appearance patent with a product name of "Facial Cleansing Instrument", and the granting publication date is March 19, 2019.

Regarding this patent, a natural person filed a request for invalidation of the patent right with the CNIPA. The reason was that the patent involved did not comply with the provisions of Article 23, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Patent Law. At the same time, three evidence were submitted.

01

Article 23, paragraph 1, of the Patent Law stipulates:

The design for which a patent right is granted shall not belong to an existing design; no unit or individual has applied for the same design to the patent administration department of the State Council before the application date, and it shall be recorded in patent documents published after the application date.

02

Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Patent Law stipulates:

The design for which patent rights are granted should be significantly different from existing designs or combinations of existing design features.

The CNIPA established a collegial group to review the case. The collegial panel adopted some of our opinions and held that the petitioner only showed Evidence 3 in the list to comment on the provisions of Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Patent Law, without stating specific reasons; Evidence 2 is a patent document that was filed first and published later, and Evidence 2 and Evidence 3 will not be considered. The final judgment was that compared with Evidence 1, the patent involved in the case has completely different overall product structures due to different design ideas. They are neither the same or substantially the same design, nor are they significantly different.

→From left to right are the patents involved in the case, Evidence 1, and Evidence 2

1. The single design and component design of facial cleansing products with massage function are based on different design ideas, resulting in large differences in product shapes.

2. This invalidation request procedure involves the “transfer” of the design. The petitioner believes that the patent involved in the case and Evidence 1 are reused in animal shapes and can break through the category restrictions without significant difference. Regarding the transfer of appearance elements between natural objects and specific products, compare the 2010 version of the Examination Guidelines, Part 4, Chapter 5, Section 6, and the four types of designs have no obvious difference from existing designs, and the patent involved does not belong to them. Either way, therefore, the claim of the petitioner is not valid.