Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-06-26
R0598/2022-3
Contested design: 005647708-0010
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs and fees in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Nichtigkeitsantragstellerin trägt die Kosten und Gebühren der Inhaberin des Geschmacksmusters im Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahren.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Lidl Digital International GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Stiftsbergstraße 1, 74172 Neckarsulm, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Ningbo Hanyuan Lighting Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
657 Xiufeng Road, GaoQiao Industry Zone, Yinzhou District, Ningbo, 315174 Zhejiang, China
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
luminaire shown in the Albert catalog 2017/2018 and product sheet
Albert catalog 2017/2018
luminaire shown in the Albert catalog 2017/2018 and product sheet
Albert catalog 2017/2018
earlier luminaire design
RCD No 4 057008-0005 · eSearch plus
earlier luminaire design
Chinese design No 2011530434105 · China design register
earlier luminaire design
Chinese design No 201630587389 · China design register
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed the rejection of its invalidity request, arguing that the contested luminaire lacked novelty and individual character at least over prior designs D1 and D2 and that the first-instance reasoning was insufficient.
- ›The design holder responded that the late-filed evidence should not have been considered, that disclosure of D1 and D2 had not been proven, and that the contested design remained new and individually distinctive.
- ›The Board found the evidence inadequate to prove disclosure of D1 and D2 before the priority date, stressing that the alleged Albert catalog content and internet references did not objectively establish publication of those designs.
- ›Because D3 to D5 were no longer substantively pursued on appeal and no error was shown as to them, the Board dismissed the appeal and left the invalidity application rejected.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b), Art 5(1)(b), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R0599/2022-3 | 2023-06-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b), Art 5(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1826/2025-3 | 2026-04-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0333/2025-3 | 2026-01-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2551/2023-3 | 2024-11-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1858/2022-3 | 2024-11-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1857/2022-3 | 2024-11-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2125/2023-3 | 2024-07-24 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |