DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007745252-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-10-09

R0810/2022-3

Contested design: 007745252-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the design holder must bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Piffany Copenhagen ApSvia PDF extraction

Denmark (DK)

Bymosevej 17, 3200 Helsinge, Denmark

Represented by

Bech-Bruun Law Firm

Holder · RCD owner

Deluxe holding ApSvia PDF extraction

Denmark (DK)

Kobbervej 7, 6000 Kolding, Denmark

Represented by

Løje IP

Prior art cited (2)

Prior useD1

UYUNI pillar candle

Maison & Objet trade fair, Villepinte · disclosed 2020-01-17

CatalogD2

Sompex electric candle (Lysholder)

Model No 39 050 · SOMPEX 2017 catalogue

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The design holder argued that D1 was not validly disclosed, D2 was unclear, the market was crowded, and the cited candles created different overall impressions.
  • The invalidity applicant maintained that D1 had been disclosed before filing and that both D1 and D2 deprived the contested candle of individual character.
  • The Board admitted additional appeal evidence, found D1 disclosed at the Maison & Objet fair in January 2020, and compared the contested design with D1.
  • It held that the shared cylindrical body, wick and teardrop flame dominated the overall impression, so the contested RCD lacked individual character and the appeal failed.

Deciding panel

  • ChairS. Stürmann
  • RapporteurH. Salmi
  • MemberM. Bra
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0181/2025-32025-05-27Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0827/2024-32025-03-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1336/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0797/2024-32025-01-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1124/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1123/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1125/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1015/2024-32024-11-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5