Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-09-30
R1860/2018-3
Contested design: 003506609-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the fees and costs incurred by the design holder.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the fees and costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Ledil Oyvia PDF extraction
Finland (FI)
Joensuunkatu 13, FI-24100 Salo, Finland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Zhongshan Darkoo optical Co.,Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
BeiKa Warehouse, HuanMao LuCe, HuoJu Development Zone, Zhongshan, People's Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
part of street lamps (LED module)
RCD No 2 261 404-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-02-07
optic module STRADA-IP-2X6-DWC-90
http://www.ledil.fi · www.LEDil.com / internet archive · disclosed 2014-08-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant (Ledil Oy) argued the contested street-lamp module RCD lacked individual character over its earlier RCD No 2 261 404-0001 and the STRADA-IP-2X6-DWC-90 product, contending the front and isometric views produced an almost identical overall impression.
- ›Design holder (Zhongshan Darkoo) did not reply to the appeal.
- ›The Board agreed with the Invalidity Division that the STRADA photo was too blurred for comparison and upheld the exclusion of the technical drawing as not publicly available; comparing only the two registered designs, the Board found clear differences in platform shape (square vs rectangular) and number/size of LED 'bubbles' (4 large vs 12 smaller), which an informed user — a public procurement official — would notice.
- ›The Board dismissed the appeal, confirming the contested RCD has individual character over the only accepted prior design.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurA. Szanyi Felkl
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| 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 ↗ |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0538/2025-3 | 2025-09-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0536/2025-3 | 2025-09-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0204/2024-3 | 2025-06-04 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2422/2022-3 | 2024-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1747/2022-3 | 2024-01-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0489/2022-3 | 2023-12-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |