Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-06-26
R2301/2019-3
Contested design: 005239217-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's fees and costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the fees and costs incurred by the design holder.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Plejd ABvia PDF extraction
Sweden (SE)
Göteborgsvägen 52, 431 37 Mölndal, Sweden
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
HYTRONIK ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
3/F, Complex Building C, No. 155 Bogang Road South, Bogang Village, Xiaojinkou Town, Huicheng District, Huizhou City, Guangdong Province, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
lighting switch/light dimmer design relied on as the earlier registered design
RCD No 3 877 356-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-05-03
catalogue images of a blue/white light dimmer submitted for the first time on appeal
Plejd AB (publ) 'INBJUDAN TILL TECKNING AV AKTIER INFÖR NOTERING PÅ AKTIETORGET NOTERINGSMEMORANDUM VÅREN 2016' · Plejd AB catalogue
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested light-dimmer design was a copy of its earlier RCD No 3 877 356-0001 and, on appeal, also relied on catalogue images of a blue-and-white product to minimise the colour difference.
- ›The design holder replied that the earlier design had only one row of connectors whereas the contested design had two opposing rows, a differently shaped recessed lid, different connector integration and a distinctive colour configuration.
- ›The Board disregarded the appeal-stage catalogue design under Article 63(2) CDR and held that the accepted earlier RCD, although properly disclosed, created a different overall impression because of the contested design's H-shaped recessed lid, two connector rows and colour combination.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the contested RCD retained individual character and the invalidity applicant was ordered to pay costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberC. Negro
- Registrarp.o. R. Vidal
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0952/2021-3 | 2024-09-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2140/2023-3 | 2024-08-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2585/2023-3 | 2024-08-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1745/2023-3 | 2024-06-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |