Invalidity · first instance · 2019-02-27
000011221
Contested design: 002871905-0002
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected and the contested RCD remains valid.
Show verbatim operative text
The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0028719050002 is rejected.
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
RCD No 001695263-0003 · EUIPO Official Bulletin · disclosed 2010-04-14
Beghelli lamps 'versione concentrante' (Acciaio LED), 'apparecchio 1x' (Acciaio ticinque), and 'apparecchio 1x' (Acciaio T8)
Illuminazione, pages 126-130 · Italian catalogue
Beghelli lamps from German catalogue
Allgemein Beleuchtung, pages 11, 19 and 22 · German catalogue
sales of 'Acciaio T5' lamps
Invoice No 14011048 · invoice
further evidence of public availability of Beghelli lamps
Invoice No 14401538 · invoice
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(b), alleging lack of novelty and individual character over earlier RCD No 001695263-0003 and additional Beghelli lamps shown in catalogues and invoices.
- ›Holder argued the similarities were dictated by function and that the remaining aesthetic differences showed the contested design was new and had individual character.
- ›The Division disregarded the unsubstantiated Article 25(1)(d) ground and the unattached catalogue and invoice annexes, so it assessed only earlier RCD No 001695263-0003.
- ›It found the earlier design had been disclosed but was not identical, and the visible differences produced a different overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected, and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in representation costs.
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 |
| 000011220 vs HANGZHOU CHENGYUE ELECTRON& ELECTRIC CO.., LTD. | 2019-02-27 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 8 |