DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004748051-0041

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-08-19

R2054/2021-3

Contested design: 004748051-0041

CDRAppellant: holdermedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the design holder must bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Beschwerdeführerin trägt die Kosten der Beschwerdegegnerin.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Briloner Leuchten GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Im Kissen 2, 59929 Brilon, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

Paul Neuhaus GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Olakenweg 36, 59457 Werl, Deutschland

Prior art cited (1)

CatalogD1

wall light from the Cinier Luminaires LT line

Cinier Luminaires LT model 'Trio LT' · pre-published product line materials

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6(1)(b)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant relied on the earlier lamp model Trio LT and argued that the contested ceiling light lacked individual character.
  • The design holder argued that the compared lamps differed in structure, symmetry, use and visual effect despite some common rectangular framing elements.
  • The Board considered the designer's freedom for lamps to be average and found that the contested design essentially reproduced the overall impression created by the earlier Trio LT model.
  • The appeal failed; the earlier invalidation for lack of individual character remained in place and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurC. Bartos
  • MemberA. Pohlmann
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R2422/2022-32024-01-30Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)9
R2206/2021-32022-12-07Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)9
R0133/2022-32022-12-07Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)9
R0303/2021-32022-07-12Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b), Art 6(2)9
R1857/2022-32024-11-08Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b), Art 6(2)7
R1858/2022-32024-11-08Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b), Art 6(2)7
R2453/2023-32024-10-30Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)7
R2471/2023-32024-08-26Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)7