Richard Mille has landed a win in its bid to cancel the registration of a watch case that too closely mirrors one of its own designs. In a decision issued on April 15, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”)’s Invalidity Division sided with Richard Mille owner Turlen Holding SA, invalidating the registration owned by two Chinese individuals for a barrel-shaped watch case featuring a layered “sandwich” structure, star-shaped screws, grooved crown, merlon-like side details, and racing-inspired pushers, on the basis that it lacked the requisite novelty and individual character.
A Bit of Background: Turlen Holding SA sought a declaration of invalidity from the EUIPO after Lijun Wu and Zherong Wang registered their design (No. 015012178-0001) back in February 2023, arguing that the design lacks novelty and individual character in accordance with Article 25(1)(b) of the Community Design Regulation. Specifically, Turlen Holding maintained that Wu and Wang’s design “presents identical features and, in any case, it produces the same overall impression as several earlier designs,” including Richard Mille’s RM 35-01 watch, which has been on the market since 2014.
According to Turlen, the contested design bears many of the same elements as the coveted Richard Mille RM 35-01 watch, including the crenelated barrel shape, symmetrical star-shaped screws, merlon-like case features, and grooved crowns.
Wu and Wang did not submit a defense in response to Turlen Holding SA’s bid for invalidation.
Minor Differences Aren’t Enough
In its decision, the EUIPO’s Invalidity Division sided with Turlen, finding that while there were minor differences between the two watch designs, such as the addition of wing-shaped pushers and slight variations in the back of the case, these deviations did not meaningfully alter the overall impression of the contested watch design. For instance, the Invalidity Division addressed differences between the watch designs, including …
> Differences in color: The EUIPO stated that the difference in color between the contested design (blue with a green strap) and the earlier design (black) had limited impact on the overall impression and was not sufficient to establish individual character. Specifically, the Invalidity Division noted, “Although the difference in color constitutes an easily spotted difference, compared with the black of the earlier design, it is nevertheless not capable of making a different overall impression on the informed user either on its own or in combination with the other differences described above.”
In essence, the EUIPO emphasized that color alone, especially in an industry like watch design where color variations are common, does not significantly alter the overall aesthetic identity of a design when the core shape and structural elements remain nearly identical.
> Differences in the back of the design: The EUIPO addressed the differences in the back of the watch, which it deemed to be of limited relevance because such differences are not visible during normal use. Specifically, the decision noted, “As to the differences in the case back it has to be noted, as correctly argued by the applicant, that this part is not visible during the normal use, and therefore, these differences will have less impact in the informed user’s perception.”
This means that even though the rear side of the contested design differed from the earlier design, such as the absence of star-shaped screws and the presence of a circular battery compartment, these changes were considered insignificant in the evaluation of overall impression, because an informed user would not typically see or focus on the back of the watch when it is being worn.
>> Also worth noting: The EUIPO emphasized that the design freedom in the luxury watch sector is broad, and thus, superficial tweaks made to the contested design are not enough to set that design apart from the Richard Mille watch. The Invalidity Division stated that since a watch designer’s degree of freedom is “not severely limited” by technical or legal constraints, “only small differences between the compared designs will not suffice to confer individual character on the contested design.”
With this in mind, the EUIPO determined that both watch designs “feature a unique and non-functional combination of case structures and detailing that are far from standard in the watchmaking industry,” noting that the similarities between the two watches “are both numerous and visually striking.”
A Meaningful Decision in the Watch Segment
The outcome at the EUIPO-level reinforces the IP office’s stance on protecting the visual identity of well-established brands. The ruling highlights that in sectors with broad design freedom, such as luxury watches, even functional or stylistic tweaks do not justify copying a well-known design language, and by declaring the design invalid, the EUIPO confirmed the importance of safeguarding distinctive design signatures, which are central to brand equity in the luxury market.
“Despite the importance of design in the watchmaking sector, disputes over designs are quite rare,” says Jérôme Tassi, a partner at Paris-based firm AGIL’IT, making the decision particularly worthy of attention. The decision also serves as a cautionary tale for manufacturers seeking to capitalize on established design languages – especially those as recognizable as Richard Mille’s.
Share
