DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002512046-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-08-21

000102639

Contested design: 002512046-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 002512046-0001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

DAPO Leuchten Vertriebs-GmbH

Germany (DE)

Industriestr. 1, 76669 Bad Schönborn-Mingolsheim, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

"Durable" Hunke & Jochheim GmbH & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft

Germany (DE)

Westfalenstr. 77-79, 58636 Iserlohn, Deutschland

Prior art cited (3)

Registered RCDUN2

floor lamp

RCD No. 002415497-0019 · EUIPO eSearch database / Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-04-17

Prior useUN3/UN4⚠ rejected as evidence

LED floor lamp

18F2 · WALSUN catalog and alleged Canton Fair / EU sales disclosure

Prior useUN3/UN4⚠ rejected as evidence

LED floor lamp

18F3 · WALSUN catalog and alleged Canton Fair / EU sales disclosure

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6(1)Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character, relying mainly on earlier RCD No. 002415497-0019 and alleged prior LED floor lamps 18F2 and 18F3.
  • The holder disputed prior disclosure of the lamps and argued that several visible differences, including proportions, base shape, control panel, and ventilation slots, changed the overall impression.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the earlier RCD through its publication but found the alleged prior lamps were not proven to have been disclosed before the contested filing date.
  • Comparing the contested design with the earlier RCD, the Division found enough differences in proportions and features to produce a different overall impression, so the application failed.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload 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
000106699

vs Shenzhen Juku Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.

2020-05-19Invalidity application rejected266
000104459

vs EGLO LEUCHTEN GMBH

2019-11-21Invalidity application rejected266
000104419

vs Lukas Staffen

2019-11-04Invalidity application rejected266
000107620

vs DUOLLA s.c. Aleksandra PACHO, Aleksandra SOSNOWSKA-KRYWULT

2019-10-23Invalidity application rejected266
000102399

vs INTAV S.R.L.

2019-08-09Invalidity application rejected266
000101440

vs KARE Design GmbH

2019-07-09Invalidity application rejected266
000104899

vs Daxtor ApS

2019-05-22Invalidity application rejected266
000103059

vs ZHEJIANG CHINA-BEST IMPORT & EXPORT CO.,LTD

2019-05-20Invalidity application rejected266