Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-04-15
R2460/2022-3
Contested design: 002912014-0022
Outcome
The contested decision is set aside, the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division for further examination, and each party bears its own costs in the appeal.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die angefochtene Entscheidung wird aufgehoben. 2. Die Angelegenheit wird zur weiteren Bearbeitung an die Nichtigkeitsabteilung zurückverwiesen. 3. Die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens trägt jede Partei selbst.
CostsEach party bears its own costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
RZB Rudolf Zimmermann, Bamberg GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Rheinstraße 16, 96052 Bamberg, Deutschland
Holder · RCD owner
BEGA Gantenbrink-Leuchten KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Hennenbusch, 58708 Menden, Deutschland
Prior art cited (8)
GGM 2688291-0004 · Blatt für Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster · disclosed 2015-04-28
GGM 343355-0017 · disclosed 2007-11-13
GGM 514088-0004 · disclosed 2006-08-08
GGM 725056-0009 · disclosed 2007-08-07
GGM 2333245-0007 · disclosed 2013-11-04
GGM 1289599-0001 · disclosed 2013-10-02
Deutsches Design 402011004195-0009 · disclosed 2011-12-23
Deutsches Design 40004467-0001 · disclosed 2000-09-09
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The holder appealed, arguing D1 lacks the enclosing glass layer and visible edge effect that dominate the contested wall light's overall impression.
- ›The invalidity applicant said the appeal relied on late and immaterial arguments, and that D1 and the prior design corpus already disclosed the same relevant features.
- ›The Board held the holder's appeal arguments were admissible, but excluded newly introduced prior designs because an appeal cannot enlarge the invalidity case.
- ›On the merits, the Board found D1 lacks the glass-covered diffuser and resulting light-breaking edge effect, so D1 creates a different overall impression; it annulled the decision and remitted D2-D8.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0422/2023-3 | 2024-03-19 | Decision annulled | Art 63(2), Art 60(1) | — | 7 |
| R0353/2022-3 | 2023-03-10 | Decision annulled | Art 63(2), Art 60(1) | — | 7 |
| R0577/2025-3 | 2026-01-21 | Decision annulled | Art 60(1) | — | 5 |
| R1804/2024-3 | 2025-11-19 | Decision annulled | Art 63(2) | — | 5 |
| R0823/2024-3 | 2025-06-18 | Decision annulled | Art 60(1) | — | 5 |
| R0010/2024-3 | 2024-10-02 | Decision annulled | Art 60(1) | — | 5 |
| R1885/2023-3 | 2024-09-26 | Decision annulled | Art 60(1) | — | 5 |
| R1070/2020-3 | 2023-09-06 | Decision annulled | Art 63(2) | — | 5 |