Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-10-21
R0097/2025-3
Contested design: 002912014-0022
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
RZB Rudolf Zimmermann, Bamberg GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Rheinstraße 16, 96052 Bamberg, Deutschland
Holder · RCD owner
BEGA Gantenbrink-Leuchten KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Hennenbusch, 58708 Menden, Deutschland
Prior art cited (8)
Leuchten, Lampen
UGM Nr. 2688291-0004 · Blatt für Unionsgeschmacksmuster · disclosed 2015-04-28
UGM Nr. 343355-0017 · Blatt für Unionsgeschmacksmuster · disclosed 2007-11-13
Leuchten
UGM Nr. 514088-0004 · Blatt für Unionsgeschmacksmuster · disclosed 2006-08-08
Leuchtvorrichtungen
UGM Nr. 725056-0009 · Blatt für Unionsgeschmacksmuster · disclosed 2007-08-07
UGM Nr. 2333245-0007 · disclosed 2013-11-04
UGM Nr. 1289599-0001 · disclosed 2013-10-02
Deutsches Design Nr. 402011004195-0009 · disclosed 2011-12-23
Deutsches Design Nr. 40004467-0001 · disclosed 2000-09-09
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed and argued that only D1 to D4 formed the invalidity case, that the first-instance analysis misdescribed the lamp features, and that D2 to D4 created the same overall impression as the contested wall light.
- ›The holder sought dismissal, argued D5 to D8 had been properly considered as prior designs, maintained that the edge-light effect remained a meaningful design feature, and objected to late-filed materials that expanded or supplemented the case.
- ›The Board accepted the late-filed supplementary materials only insofar as they supplemented the existing argument, limited the appeal to D2 to D4, and held that each cited design lacked the contested design's glass-covered diffuser and corresponding light effect.
- ›It found that D2, D3 and D4 each produced a different overall impression on the informed user, so the invalidity application remained rejected and the appeal failed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- RegistrarK. Zajfert
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0828/2024-3 | 2025-12-05 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1315/2023-3 | 2024-04-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0370/2022-3 | 2023-02-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R1524/2021-3 | 2022-05-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R1804/2024-3 | 2025-11-19 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R0422/2023-3 | 2024-03-19 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |