Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-06-30
R2528/2025-3
Contested design: 004555001-0006
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the design holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Zheng Chenvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province, China
Represented by
Ilyas Güclü
Holder · RCD owner
Yuyao Hilite Electric Co.,Ltdvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
Yuyao City - Zhejiang Prov, China
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
lamp (Locarno Class 26-05)
EU design No 679030-0003 · EU Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2007-04-03
lamp (Locarno Class 26-05), Chinese registered design with EU design No 679030-0003 as priority
CN 300 856 650 D · Chinese design bulletin · disclosed 2008-12-03
lamp (Locarno Class 26-05)
EU design No 2551580-0003 · EU Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-11-24
lamp (Locarno Class 26-05)
German design No 402 017 100 684-0022 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office · disclosed 2017-10-06
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Invalidity applicant (appellant) argued the Invalidity Division's decision was vitiated by insufficient reasoning on market saturation, an ambiguous comparison with D4, an impermissible carry-over of the novelty analysis from the individual character assessment, undue weight given to top/bottom views, and failure to address certain submissions.
- ›Design holder defended the contested decision as correctly reasoned, objectively assessing the prior designs and properly applying Articles 5 and 6 EUDR; it argued the differences between the contested LED standing lamp (EUD 4555001-0006) and D1-D4 were clearly perceptible and sufficient to confer novelty and individual character.
- ›The Board upheld the Invalidity Division on all grounds: the design corpus finding was contextual only, the D4 comparison was sufficiently reasoned, novelty was properly derived from the individual character analysis, top/bottom views were relevant given the lamp's on/off button, and excluded arguments were transferred from an unrelated case.
- ›Appeal dismissed; the contested LED standing lamp EUD produces a different overall impression from D1-D4 and satisfies novelty and individual character requirements under Articles 5 and 6 CDR.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarK. Zajfert
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1106/2025-3 | 2026-06-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2360/2025-3 | 2026-05-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2274/2025-3 | 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 |