Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-11-08
R1857/2022-3
Contested design: 004031201-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Inhaberin des Geschmacksmusters trägt die Kosten und Gebühren der Nichtigkeitsantragstellerin im Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahren.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Light Tec Limitedvia PDF extraction
Hong Kong (HK)
Unit 908-910, 9/F, Prosperity Center, 25 Chong Yip Street, Kwun Tong, Hong Kong SAR
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
DecoTrend GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Zur Drehscheibe 5, 92637 Weiden, Deutschland
Prior art cited (3)
star-shaped light design shown in the patent figures
Patentschrift Nr. 1 653 206 · United States Patent Office · disclosed 1927-12-20
star-shaped design
Deutsches Design Nr. 40 2009 000767-0002 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office · disclosed 2009-04-24
star-shaped design
Deutsches Design Nr. 40 2009 000767-0006 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office · disclosed 2009-04-24
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The holder-appellant argued D2 and D3 were not properly invoked in the invalidity request and that only D1 should be assessed.
- ›It also argued the common star form and red-yellow colours were product-typical, while D2 differed structurally and created a different overall impression.
- ›The invalidity applicant-respondent replied that all views had to be compared, the designs shared the same complex star appearance and colours, and the contested design closely followed D2.
- ›The Board held the invalidity request covered D1 to D3, confirmed D2 was disclosed before the filing date, found broad design freedom and no market saturation, and concluded the contested design lacked individual character over D2.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the holder was ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees in both instances.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | human 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1858/2022-3 | 2024-11-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b), Art 6(2) | — | 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 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2551/2023-3 | 2024-11-26 | 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 |
| R0599/2022-3 | 2023-06-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0598/2022-3 | 2023-06-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |