Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-06-26
R0599/2022-3
Contested design: 005647708-0013
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Nichtigkeitsantragstellerin trägt die Kosten 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 (6)
earlier luminaire design
Chinese design No 201530434102.X · China design register
earlier luminaire design
Chinese design No 201630587389.4 · China design register
earlier luminaire design
Chinese design No 201530434027.7 · China design register
earlier luminaire design supported by online extracts and product sheet
earlier luminaire design
RCD No 3 099 175-0032 · EUIPO register
earlier luminaire design supported by online extracts, technical report, and product sheet
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued on appeal that the Invalidity Division understated the similarities between the contested luminaire and prior designs D1 to D6 and gave undue weight to differences said to be mainly technical.
- ›The design holder replied that the first-instance decision correctly found novelty and individual character and that the contested design differed sufficiently from each earlier design.
- ›The Board confirmed disclosure of the earlier designs, identified the informed user as a relatively attentive user of luminaires, and held that visible differences in the wall mounting, glass placement, housing form, colours, solar cell, and sensor changed the overall impression.
- ›It also rejected the complaint of insufficient reasoning under Article 62 and dismissed the appeal, leaving the invalidity request unsuccessful.
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 |
| R0598/2022-3 | 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 |