Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-05-18
R2274/2025-3
Contested design: 002318477-0012
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs of both the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(fr)
1. Le recours est rejeté ; 2. La demanderesse en nullité devra supporter les frais exposés par la titulaire du dessin ou modèle contesté dans le cadre des procédures de nullité et de recours.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Lichtstudio Eisenkeil GmbHvia PDF extraction
Austria (AT)
Vomp, Autriche
Represented by
Stefan Warbek
Prior art cited (4)
Designheure 2010 catalogue showing the “Applique murale Petit Nuage” wall light on pages 16 and 17
https://www.designheure.com/download/catalogue_2010.pdf · Designheure website
Designheure technical sheet stating a 2010 design and updated on 28/03/2022
https://www.designheure.com/cache/documents/product/spec-sheetnuagechandelier-10-large-eu-int-3178.pdf · Designheure website · disclosed 2022-03-28
German-language product page screenshot for a Designheure chandelier
https://www.nedgis.com/de/products/kronleuchter-10-grosse-wolke-grau-gold-o223cm-h210cm-designheure · Nedgis website
German-language product page screenshot for a Designheure chandelier
https://www.archiproducts.com/de/produkte/designheure/led-luster-aus-stoffnuage-10-moyen_627032 · Archiproducts website
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the 2010 online Designheure catalogue disclosed the same wall light and that non-visible or colour-based differences were insignificant.
- ›The holder replied that the earlier publication did not show an identical design and that the visible shade, mount, and cable differences prevented identity.
- ›The Board confirmed that the 2010 catalogue was publicly disclosed before the grace period, while Annexes E to G were not valid prior disclosures for the novelty assessment.
- ›The Board held that the shade border contrast, wall-mount shape and colour, and power-cable colour were visible and significant, so the earlier designs were not identical and the contested design remained new.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear the costs of both instances.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- MemberC. Negro
- MemberS. Rizzo
- RegistrarK. Zajfert
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2273/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| 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 |
| R1826/2025-3 | 2026-04-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |