Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-11-27
R2336/2022-3
Contested design: 003619881-0003
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must pay the holder’s costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings, fixed at EUR 900.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings, which are fixed at the amount of EUR 900.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €900
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Lidl Vertriebs-GmbH & Co. KG (Anzing)via PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Gewerbepark 1, 85646 Anzing, Germany
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Liquidleds Lighting Corpvia PDF extraction
Taiwan (TW)
Suite A2, 9F., No. 333, Sec.2, Dunhua S. Rd., Da-an Distr., 10669 Taipei City, Taiwan, Province of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
spiraled LED light bulb sold by Bailey
Model No 80100038654 · Bailey catalogue and YouTube video 'Spiraled movie' · disclosed 2016-09-14
Simbulb clear LED light bulb
simlighting.com and tplighting.hk
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant relied on two earlier LED bulb designs and argued that the contested bulb lacked novelty and individual character over them.
- ›The design holder answered that D1 fell within the 12-month grace period because Bailey’s disclosure resulted from its own acts, and that D2 had not been validly dated.
- ›The Board found sufficient evidence that Bailey disclosed D1 on the basis of information from the design holder at the 2016 fair, so Article 7(2) CDR excluded D1 from consideration.
- ›It also held that D2 was not proven to have been disclosed before filing because the website extracts were undated, so the invalidity application could not succeed and the appeal failed.
Deciding panel
- ChairSven Stürmann
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberS. Rizzo
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0055/2022-3 | 2022-10-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(2), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R1654/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R1696/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R1694/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R1699/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R1693/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R1695/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R1698/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |