DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000684360-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-12-09

R2289/2023-3

Contested design: 000684360-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design 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

Holder · RCD owner

XAL GmbHvia PDF extraction

Austria (AT)

Auer-Welsbach-Gasse 36, 8055 Graz, Österreich

Prior art cited (3)

CatalogAnlage A⚠ rejected as evidence

product data sheet for the LED lighting system "Sigma II Corner Y LED"

Sigma II Corner Y LED · product data sheet · disclosed 2022-03-12

Web disclosureAnlage B⚠ rejected as evidence

undated internet prints showing lamps, including the "Y-MODEL" offer

CASA SHOP; anour.dk · CASA SHOP / anour.dk

Web disclosureAnlage C⚠ rejected as evidence

undated internet offer of a Y-shaped LED lamp by A.L Lighting Limited

A.L Lighting Limited offer "4000K beleuchtet natürliche Deckenverkleidung des Weiß-LED y-Form mit 90" · A.L Lighting Limited internet offer

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 28(1)(b)Article 52(2)Article 63(1)Article 63(2)Article 64(1)Article 65(1)Article 70(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the contested lamp lacked novelty and individual character because comparable Y-shaped ceiling lights had been disclosed before filing.
  • On appeal it also relied on late-filed Italian registered designs and alleged procedural errors in refusing witness and expert evidence and an oral hearing.
  • The holder replied that no pre-filing disclosure had been proven, the new Italian designs were inadmissible, and the cited designs were irrelevant in any event.
  • The Board found that Annexes AN-AQ impermissibly expanded the case and that Annexes A-C did not prove pre-filing disclosure; the appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • RapporteurE. Fink
  • MemberA. Pohlmann
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R2322/2024-32025-05-21Decision confirmedArt 28(1)(b), Art 7(1)7
R1845/2023-32024-12-09Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 28(1)(b)7
R0291/2018-32019-01-14Decision annulledArt 7(1), Art 28(1)(b)6
R0054/2025-32025-09-18Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R2328/2024-32025-08-22Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R2089/2024-32025-08-22Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R1620/2024-32025-05-12Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R1002/2024-32025-02-14Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5