Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-06-02
R1288/2021-3
Contested design: 003069616-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Desestimar el recurso. 2. Ordenar que la titular sufrague las costas de la solicitante de nulidad.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Soluciones de Iluminación LED, S.L.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
C. Sant Joan de la Salle (Ed Technova), n.º 42, 3º, 08022 Barcelona, España
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Vibia Lighting, S.L.U.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
C. Progrés, 4, 08850 Gavà, España
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
Algorithm lamp collection article
https://www.archiproducts.com/en/news/algorithm-vibia-presents-new-collection-designed-by-toan-nguyen_45128 · Archiproducts · disclosed 2015-04-13
Algorithm lamp collection article
https://www.archiportale.com/news/2015/04/archiproducts-news/globi-luminosi-sospesi-disciplinati-secondo-un-ordine-matematico_45128_65.html · Archiportale · disclosed 2015-04-13
Algorithm lamp collection news page
http://toan-nguyen.com/news/algorithm-and-contemporary-collection-featured-at-euroluce-and-salone-del-mobile/ · Toan Nguyen website · disclosed 2015-04-13
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The holder argued that the cited online disclosures of the Algorithm lamps were not reliably proven to have been public on 13 April 2015 and, in any event, any disclosure fell within the grace period because the collection was first presented on 14 April 2015.
- ›The invalidity applicant relied on three online articles dated 13 April 2015, a notarial record of the websites and technical evidence indicating that those publications were genuinely online before the RCD filing date and outside the grace period.
- ›The Board agreed with the Invalidity Division that the earlier online publications reliably disclosed the same lamp design and that the compared designs were identical apart from immaterial differences.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity finding for lack of novelty was maintained.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberH. Salmi
- Registrarp.o. R. Vidal
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1562/2022-3 | 2023-05-31 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(2) | — | 9 |
| R1289/2021-3 | 2022-10-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(2) | — | 9 |
| R1290/2021-3 | 2022-10-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(2) | — | 9 |
| R0055/2022-3 | 2022-10-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(2) | — | 9 |
| R2422/2022-3 | 2024-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2336/2022-3 | 2023-11-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(2) | — | 7 |
| R0542/2022-3 | 2023-04-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(2) | — | 7 |
| R1103/2022-3 | 2023-02-15 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |