DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003299486-0010

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-03-27

R0040/2022-3

Contested design: 003299486-0010

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

Show verbatim operative text(fr)

1. Le recours est rejeté ; 2. La demanderesse en nullité devra supporter les frais engagés par la titulaire du dessin ou modèle.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

EGLO Leuchten GmbHvia PDF extraction

Austria (AT)

Heiligkreuz 22, 6136 Pill, Autriche

Represented by

Taylor Wessing

Holder · RCD owner

Ningbo Xinfeng Lighting Tech. Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

No. 169, ZISHAN E. ROAD, Zhangting town, Yuyao Ningbo, Chine

Represented by

JLA Avocats

Jihad Lahmidi

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

luminaire lighting unit with circular crown elements and pyramidal connector

RCD No 2 232 892-0004 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2013-05-08

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 70(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the contested lighting unit was merely a partial product already fully visible in the earlier RCD and therefore lacked novelty and individual character.
  • The design holder replied that the contested design had different proportions, a different base-to-cover relationship, and a distinct overall impression.
  • The Board agreed that the compared lamp units differed materially in base length, diameter proportions and visible openings, which the informed user would notice despite shared circular and pyramidal features.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • MemberM. Bra
  • MemberE. Fink
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0116/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0115/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1669/2023-32024-11-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2453/2023-32024-10-30Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0952/2021-32024-09-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2140/2023-32024-08-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2585/2023-32024-08-06Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1745/2023-32024-06-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5