Invalidity · first instance · 2019-02-27
000011220
Contested design: 002871905-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0028719050001 is rejected. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Beghelli S.P.A.
Italy (IT)
Via Mozzeghine, 13/15 — loc. Monteveglio, 40053 Valsamoggia (Bologna), Italy
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Hangzhou Chengyue Lighting Technology Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
No. 2 Yaojia Rd, Yuhang, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Petra Bárová
Prior art cited (5)
lighting apparatus / lamp
Community design No 001695263-0003 · Office’s official bulletin · disclosed 2010-04-14
Beghelli lamps 'versione concentrante' in the 'Acciaio LED' series and 'apparecchio 1x' in the 'Acciaio ticinque' and 'Acciaio T8' series
Illuminazione · Italian catalogue
Beghelli lamps included in the German catalogue on pages 11, 19 and 22
Allgemein Beleuchtung · German catalogue
sales of lamps named 'Acciaio T5' in 2014
Invoice No 14011048
invoice submitted as further evidence of public availability of the cited lamps
Invoice No 14401538
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying mainly on earlier Community design No 001695263-0003 and additionally citing catalogue and invoice evidence for other Beghelli lamps.
- ›The holder argued the shared features were functional and that the remaining aesthetic differences were sufficient to establish novelty and individual character.
- ›The Division treated the Article 25(1)(d) ground and the unattached annex-based lamp disclosures as inadmissible or unsubstantiated, and assessed only the earlier Community design under Articles 5 to 7 CDR.
- ›It found the earlier design neither identical to nor producing the same overall impression as the contested RCD, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberGailé SAKALAITÉ
- MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000106699 vs Shenzhen Juku Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. | 2020-05-19 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 8 |
| 000104419 vs Lukas Staffen | 2019-11-04 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 8 |
| 000102399 vs INTAV S.R.L. | 2019-08-09 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 8 |
| 000101440 vs KARE Design GmbH | 2019-07-09 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 8 |
| 000104899 vs Daxtor ApS | 2019-05-22 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 8 |
| 000103059 vs ZHEJIANG CHINA-BEST IMPORT & EXPORT CO.,LTD | 2019-05-20 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 8 |
| 000102099 vs LIQUIDLEDS LIGHTING CORP | 2019-03-08 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 8 |
| 000011221 vs HANGZHOU CHENGYUE ELECTRON& ELECTRIC CO.., LTD. | 2019-02-27 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 8 |