Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-04-22
R1826/2025-3
Contested design: 004057701-0009
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the costs incurred by the holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1 Respinge il ricorso. 2 Ordina alla richiedente la nullità di sopportare le spese sostenute dalla titolare del DUE contestato nei procedimenti di nullità e di ricorso.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Brighter Lighting sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Bibice, Polonia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Music & Lights S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Itri (LT), Italia
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
Lampade LED
RCD No 2819375-0007 · EUIPO Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-10-15
Cameo Thunder Wash 600RGB LED light
http://www.thomann.de · Internet Archive / Thomann · disclosed 2015-12-17
Cameo Thunder Wash 600W LED light
www.cameolight.com · Internet Archive / Cameolight · disclosed 2016-07-23
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested lighting design lacked novelty and individual character over D1-D3 and that its appearance was dictated solely by technical function.
- ›The holder replied that the cited designs created clearly different overall impressions, the designer had creative freedom, and Article 8(1) did not apply because many alternative lighting forms existed.
- ›The Board held that the applicant had not proved all relevant features were exclusively technically dictated and that the first-instance reasoning on burden of proof and motivation was correct.
- ›Comparing D1-D3 individually, the Board found several visible differences in shape, proportions, side walls, rear structure, and mounting bracket, so the contested design remained new and had individual character.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarK. Zajfert
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1394/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R0333/2025-3 | 2026-01-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2328/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R2089/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R0204/2024-3 | 2025-06-04 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |