EPLAW Patent Blog

NL - Indorata v. Balmain

Indorata-Servicos & Gestao LDA Funchal and Great Lengths International S.R.L. v. Eurohair R&D c.s. and Balmain Hair Group B.V. c.s., District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, Case No.KG ZA 10-1057

Indorata Servicos holds a patent for a "method and assembly for increasing hair volume". The claim requires the use of a "support tape" with an "adhesive face" when positioning hair extensions. The President of the District Court of The Hague holds that according to the description, the adhesive face is inter alia intended to fix the position of the support tape in relation to the hair of the head. According to the President, there is no literal infringement nor infringement by way of equivalency, as the support tape of the alleged infringing device cannot fulfill this function. Thus the claims are denied.

Read the judgment (in Dutch) here.

Head note: Geert Theuws

NL - Personality Hair Great Lengths B.V. v. Great Lengths

Personality Hair Great Lengths B.V. and Great Lengths International S.R.L., v. Euro Hair Fashion Holding B.V., District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 12 May 2010, HA-ZA 09-874, with thanks to Willem Hoorneman, CMS Derks Star Busmann

Dispute regarding a Dutch patent for a tool to remove hair extensions. Great Lengths is admissible in its invalidity claims, even though it did not serve the (mandatory) advice of the Dutch Patent Office regarding the validity of the Dutch patent (ex Article 76 DPA) together with the writ of summons, but only submitted it when filing the case at the court. The -recent- change in wording of Article 76 DPA does not intend to change the term for the filing of such an invalidity advice.

Also, the fact that not all invalidity arguments were brought forward in the proceedings leading up to the obtaining of the advice, does not lead to inadmissability of the invalidity claim in court. The situation according to the court may best be compared with the situation of an examined (European) patent. Also in such case new invalidity arguments (not brought up during examination and/or opposition) may be brought forward in court.

The patent was found to be non-inventive and was invalidated.

Read the decision (in Dutch) here.