Dyson wins another PI in hair-styler fight against Dreame

Once again, the Hamburg local division under presiding judge Sabine Klepsch has prohibited Chinese manufacturer Dreame from distributing certain hair styling devices in the UPC territory and Spain by means of a preliminary injunction. A PI issued in August last year covered older versions of the models AirStyle and Dreame Pocket. The Luxembourg Court of Appeal in March extended this first PI to Dreame’s newer models Airstyle Pro, Airstyle Shine Multi, Pocket Neo and Pocket Pro.

This time the ruling refers to the model sold under the name Dazzle. Dyson claims this product equally infringes its EP 3 119 235. The patent relates to an attachment for a handheld device, particularly a hair care appliance such as a hot styling brush. Dyson itself sells the Dyson Airwrap, which can be used to curl hair.

The judges of the Hamburg division have now found Dazzle infringes EP 235 and issued a PI for the UPC territory and Spain (case ID: UPC_CFI_2255/2025).

Long-arm 2.0

As in the previous proceedings, long-arm jurisdiction was at the centre of the discussion. The question of whether or not the PI also included the UK and Northern Ireland concerned two of the five defendants. One was Dreame Netherlands, the other UK-based Cellcom.

Dreame NL imports the products in Europe and thus was considered by the court to be liable as an anchor defendant and direct infringer of the patent-in-suit, but only in the UPC territory and Spain. Despite the fact that it is the authorised representative for Dreame in Northern Ireland, according to the court, this is not a sufficient basis for qualifying Dreame NL as a joint tortfeasor or an intermediary in the meaning of the English law.

Meanwhile, Cellcom is the exclusive distributor of Dreame products in the UK and operator of a website offering shipping to mainland UK and Northern Ireland. However, the UPC ruled that the necessary close connection required by Art. 8 Brussels Regulation to subject the British company to UPC law was not established.

Thus the Hamburg local division dismissed Dyson’s PI application with regards to the UK.

Direct impact of CoA

In its current decision, the Hamburg local division implements several key elements from the recent Court of Appeal ruling, in part explicitly correcting its own earlier approach.

The first-instance court adopted and applied the broad international jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in the EU, including for non-UPCA territories such as Spain and the UK. It implemented the appeal court’s ruling that there is no need to establish plausibility of acts abroad for jurisdiction.

In this particular case though, the judges in Hamburg denied jurisdiction regarding the UK, since they did not see a sufficiently close connection to an EU-based defendant under Art. 8 Brussels Regulation. The reason being that the involvement of Dreame NL in Northern Ireland was considered to be purely regulatory and not directed at the UK market itself. Furthermore, it was not foreseeable that UK distributor Cellcom would be sued before the UPC.

JUVE Patent does not know whether a party will appeal the PI ruling. Meanwhile, proceedings on the merits are pending at the Hamburg local division (case ID: UPC_CFI_851/2025).

DLA for Dyson

DLA Piper partner Constanze Krenz already had the lead for Dyson against Shark Ninja and is also representing the company in the proceedings against Dreame.

Other team members are senior associate David Kleß and associates Julia Pehe and Joschua Fiedler, all from DLA’s Munich office. Marcos Fraile from the Spanish DLA office is also involved and Michael Carter from London-based Gowling provided advice regarding the UK.

Hogan Lovells represents Dreame in the dispute. Anna-Katharina Friese-Okoro and Christian Stoll from the Hamburg office have the lead, with assistance from associate Fabian Flüchter-Reche. They worked closely together with two patent attorneys from the firm, Munich-based partner Andreas Schmid and associate Cédric Rohr.