Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-11-16
R2105/2021-3
Contested design: 004031201-0004
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the holder's costs and fees in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurueckgewiesen. 2. Die Nichtigkeitsantragstellerin traegt die Kosten und Gebuehren der Inhaberin im Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahren.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Light Tec Limitedvia PDF extraction
Hong Kong (HK)
Kwun Tong, Hong Kong SAR, Sonderverwaltungszone Hongkong
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
DecoTrend GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Weiden, Deutschland
Prior art cited (2)
Earlier folding-star lamp shade disclosed via Web Archive
web.archive.org · Web Archive
Earlier folding-star lamp shade offered on Amazon marketplace
www.amazon.de · Amazon marketplace
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the first instance wrongly treated D1, D2 and the later-invoked patent-based designs as a single disclosure and failed to assess the later citations properly.
- ›The design holder responded that the subject matter of the invalidity case was fixed by the original application, so the later-invoked patent designs could not expand the case and the first-instance finding on D1 and D2 stood.
- ›The Board held that only the earlier designs identified in the original invalidity application formed part of the case and that the appellant had not shown any error in the first-instance assessment of D1 and D2.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the rejection of the invalidity application was maintained.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- Registrarp.o. M. Chaleva
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2) | — | 5 |
| R0828/2024-3 | 2025-12-05 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2) | — | 5 |
| R0097/2025-3 | 2025-10-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2) | — | 5 |
| R0054/2025-3 | 2025-09-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2) | — | 5 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2) | — | 5 |
| R1315/2023-3 | 2024-04-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2) | — | 5 |
| R0370/2022-3 | 2023-02-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2) | — | 5 |
| R1524/2021-3 | 2022-05-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2) | — | 5 |