DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004161867-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-07-24

000011020

Contested design: 004161867-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's fixed costs of EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 0041618670001 is declared invalid. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Mambate USA Inc.

United States (US)

7708 18th Ave, Brooklyn, New York, New York 11214, United States of America

Holder · RCD owner

Quanfan Linvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Longqiao Street, 351100 Putian (Fujian), People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (7)

Web disclosureAnnex 1

LED lamp

ASIN B01ISOK6HQ · Amazon.de · disclosed 2016-07-21

Web disclosureAnnex 2

LED lamp

ASIN B01LYS5I1Y · Amazon.de · disclosed 2016-09-12

Web disclosureAnnex 3

LED lamp

ASIN B01LJWP1NI · Amazon.de · disclosed 2016-10-28

Web disclosureAnnex 4

LED lamp

ASIN B06Y498XM5 · Amazon.de · disclosed 2017-04-28

Web disclosureAnnex 5

LED lamp

ASIN B073XDYLLK · Amazon.de · disclosed 2017-07-13

Web disclosureAnnex 6

LED lamp

Artsky · disclosed 2017-05-28

Web disclosureAnnex 7

LED lamp

Lemonbest Ledlights official store · disclosed 2017-05-26

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity of the contested wall or ceiling LED lamp for lack of novelty and individual character based on earlier online disclosures of the same design.
  • The applicant filed seven annexes from Amazon.de, Artsky, and Lemonbest; the holder submitted no observations in reply.
  • The Division accepted internet disclosures as prior art and found Annexes 2, 3, and 5 reliably showed the identical lamp before the RCD filing date.
  • Because the compared designs did not differ in any visible feature, the RCD lacked novelty and was declared invalid with costs against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

26.05

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000130945

vs Space Copenhagen Design ApS

2026-05-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)268
000131284

vs Venture MK UG (haftungsbeschränkt)

2026-04-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)268
000131264

vs Venture MK UG (haftungsbeschränkt)

2026-04-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)268
000131304

vs Venture MK UG (haftungsbeschränkt)

2026-04-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)268
000131245

vs Venture MK UG (haftungsbeschränkt)

2026-04-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)268
000131366

vs DANMAR TECH SL

2026-04-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)268
000131247

vs chao zhai

2026-04-02REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)268
000129540

vs Ningbo Wilder Outdoor Products Co., Ltd.

2026-03-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)268