Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-04-12
R0056/2020-3
Contested design: 003024371-0076
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the appellant must bear the respondent's costs.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. Der Beschwerdeführer trägt die Kosten der Beschwerdegegnerin.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Tomasz Krywultvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Żeromskiego 20a, 42-202 Częstochowa, Polen
Represented by
Marcin Mioduszewski
Holder · RCD owner
EGLO LEUCHTEN GmbHvia PDF extraction
Austria (AT)
Heiligkreuz 22, 6136 Pill, Österreich
Represented by
Prior art cited (11)
hanging lamp with dark wooden beam and multiple bulbs
Pinterest / first-instance evidence · Pinterest / first-instance exhibits
hanging lamp
mirror image of Muster 1 · Pinterest / first-instance exhibits
hanging lamp with broad dark beam and ten bulbs
first-instance exhibit · first-instance exhibits
hanging lamp with eight bulbs and metal supports
Pinterest screenshot · Pinterest · disclosed 2015-12-31
hanging lamp
first-instance exhibit · first-instance exhibits
hanging lamp
Instagram screenshot · Instagram · disclosed 2015-12-01
hanging lamp identical to Muster 6
Instagram screenshot · Instagram · disclosed 2015-12-01
hanging lamp
identical to Muster 1 · first-instance exhibits
hanging lamp with sixteen bulbs
Instagram screenshot · Instagram · disclosed 2016-02-01
hanging lamp
identical to Muster 1 · first-instance exhibits
hanging lamp
undated poor-quality image
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed the rejection of its invalidity application against the contested lamp design, relying on eleven earlier hanging-lamp designs shown through Pinterest, Instagram and other submitted images to argue lack of novelty and individual character.
- ›The holder argued that the evidence of disclosure was insufficient for several earlier designs, that some new patterns raised only on appeal were inadmissible, and that the contested lamp created a lighter, more symmetrical overall impression than the rustic earlier designs.
- ›The Board accepted disclosure for most earlier patterns but agreed that some relied-on designs were either undated or too poor in quality; on the merits it found the contested design differed in beam colour and shape, symmetry, bulb count and arrangement, and suspension structure, so the relevant earlier lamps created different overall impressions.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the invalidity application remained rejected and the invalidity applicant had to bear costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberE. Fink
- Registrarp.o. M. Chaleva
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1635/2019-3 | 2020-10-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R2349/2019-3 | 2020-09-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R1650/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R1649/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1648/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1546/2018-3 | 2019-01-22 | Decision annulled | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 8 |
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |