Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-01-07
R0414/2018-3
Contested design: 002405241-0025
Outcome
The contested decision is set aside, the invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant is ordered to bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die angefochtene Entscheidung wird aufgehoben. 2. Der Antrag auf Erklärung der Nichtigkeit wird zurückgewiesen. 3. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
EGLO LEUCHTEN GMBHvia PDF extraction
Austria (AT)
Heiligkreuz 22, 6136 Pill, Österreich
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Briloner Leuchten GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Im Kissen 2, 59929 Brilon, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
ring-shaped lamp (Ringo), registered, published 23 April 2008, expired 10 March 2013
GGM Nr. 894126-0011 · EUIPO Community Designs Bulletin / EGLO Katalog Wohnraumleuchten 2009/10 · disclosed 2008-04-23
catalogue pages showing the Ringo luminaire series
EGLO Katalog Wohnraumleuchten 2009/10 · EGLO product catalogue 2009/2010 · disclosed 2009-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder (Briloner) appealed the Invalidity Division's invalidation of its ring-shaped luminaire head RCD (GGM No 2405241-0025) for lack of individual character against earlier GGM No 894126-0011 (EGLO's 'Ringo'), arguing the first-instance decision ignored submissions on design corpus density and failed to account for the tilt-swivel joint and the clean rectangular cross-section of the luminaire body.
- ›The invalidity applicant (EGLO) requested dismissal, arguing consistency with a confirmed Board decision (R 740/2016-3) invalidating a nearly identical design, and that the tilt-swivel joint was a purely technical feature to be disregarded under Article 8(1) CDR.
- ›The Board found that the contested GGM and the earlier GGM differed in the form of the luminaire body: the earlier design has an irregular bulging ring wider at the inner edge, while the contested GGM has a uniform flat disc corresponding exactly to the housing. This difference — clearly visible and affecting light output — prevents the designs from producing the same overall impression on the informed user; the tilt-swivel joint further contributes to the overall impression regardless of its technical function.
- ›The appeal is upheld, the invalidity application is rejected, and EGLO bears the costs of both proceedings.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberC. Bartos
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1203/2016-3 | 2018-01-11 | Decision annulled | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R0732/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 4 |
| R1214/2023-3 | 2024-02-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 4 |
| R1455/2022-3 | 2023-11-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 4 |
| R0573/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 4 |
| R0574/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 4 |
| R0618/2021-3 | 2022-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 4 |
| R0619/2021-3 | 2022-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 4 |