Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-12-09
R1845/2023-3
Contested design: 001098511-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin im Nichtigkeits - und Beschwerdeverfahren.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
LTV Leuchten & Lampen Vertriebsgesellschaft m.b.H.via PDF extraction
Austria (AT)
Industriestraße B Nr. 4, 2345 Brunn am Gebirge, Österreich
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
XAL GmbHvia PDF extraction
Austria (AT)
Auer-Welsbach-Gasse 36, 8055 Graz, Österreich
Represented by
Prior art cited (9)
luminaire "IRIS SK70 Rainbow Architectural/Design Light"
luminaire series "CA70 CANTO"
luminaire series "AD70 ADONIS"
luminaire series "PANDIA SC150"
disclosed 2014-11-26
luminaire "CONTURA"
disclosed 2022-01-27
undated photo of a luminaire
undated photo of a luminaire
wall/ceiling luminaire "LADO"
disclosed 2019-12-30
wall luminaire "NOK"
disclosed 2019-12-30
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant appealed, arguing that earlier linear luminaire designs and added register extracts showed lack of individual character and that the first instance wrongly refused oral, expert, and witness evidence.
- ›The holder replied that disclosure before 23 February 2009 was unproven, the new annexes AB-AK were inadmissible, and the cited designs were in any event not decisive.
- ›The Board held annexes AB-AK could not expand the subject matter on appeal, and expert or witness measures could not replace the applicant's burden to submit examinable proof of disclosure.
- ›The Board found annexes N-V and AL did not prove public disclosure before the filing date, so no earlier design was established against the contested RCD; the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurE. Fink
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 28(1)(b), Art 7(1) | — | 7 |
| R2289/2023-3 | 2024-12-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0291/2018-3 | 2019-01-14 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R0054/2025-3 | 2025-09-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R2328/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R2089/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1620/2024-3 | 2025-05-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1002/2024-3 | 2025-02-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |