Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-02-03
R0921/2024-3
Contested design: 003838077-0014
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings, fixed at EUR 900.
Show verbatim operative text
Dismisses the appeal; Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings; Fixes the costs to be paid by the invalidity applicant to the design holder for the invalidity and appeal proceedings at EUR 900.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €900
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
ELTOR D.O.O.via PDF extraction
HR
Industrijka Ulica 18, Lovrin, 52000 Pazin, Croatia
Represented by
Ines Mandekić
Holder · RCD owner
DELTA LIGHT NVvia PDF extraction
Belgium (BE)
Muizelstraat 2, 8560 Wevelgem (Moorsele), Belgium
Represented by
Prior art cited (9)
STATE POLE light
ELTOR catalogue, online account screenshots, and merchandise stock extracts
LINEA light
Hess catalogue and related materials
DALVIK light
Hess catalogue and website extracts
GENUA light
www.hess.eu · Hess online catalogue
CUT light
ROSA email confirmation
BEAM light
ROSA catalogue
SHADE 126 light
Fone Light Technologies 2021 catalogue
SHADE 125 light
Fone Light Technologies 2021 catalogue
DEAL light
www.dael.pt · dael.pt catalogue and website extracts
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that D1 had been disclosed before the filing date and that the contested luminaire lacked novelty and individual character; it also challenged the first-instance handling of its late rejoinder and the holder's representation.
- ›The design holder replied that D1's disclosure was unproven, the rejoinder was rightly disregarded, the decision was properly notified electronically, and its Belgian lawyers were authorised to act.
- ›The Board admitted the rejoinder on appeal but held that D1's incomplete catalogues, source-less screenshots, and unlinked stock extracts still did not objectively prove public disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR.
- ›The Board added that D1 in any event created a different overall impression from the contested RCD, dismissed the appeal, and ordered the invalidity applicant to pay EUR 900 in costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deGerman | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2274/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2273/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1575/2025-3 | 2026-04-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1394/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1318/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1396/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |