Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-11-08
R1858/2022-3
Contested design: 004031201-0001
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, Hongkong
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
DecoTrend GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Zur Drehscheibe 5, 92637 Weiden, Deutschland
Prior art cited (3)
star-shaped lighting design
Patent No. 1 653 206 · United States Patent Office · disclosed 1927-12-20
star-shaped lighting design
40 2009 000767-0002 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 2009-04-24
star-shaped lighting design
40 2009 000767-0006 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 2009-04-24
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that earlier disclosures D1 to D3 anticipated the contested design’s form and colour features, so it lacked novelty and individual character.
- ›The holder argued D2 and D3 had not been properly invoked, festive star shapes and colours were product-typical, and structural differences created a different overall impression.
- ›The Board held the invalidity request covered D1 to D3, D2 had been disclosed before filing, designer freedom was broad, and market saturation was not proven.
- ›The Board found D2 and the contested design created the same overall impression on the informed user, so the design lacked individual character and the appeal was dismissed.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1857/2022-3 | 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 |