DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006264966-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-07-23

000108221

Contested design: 006264966-0001

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 006264966-0001 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

Ledlenser GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Kronenstr. 5-7, 42699 Solingen, Germany

Represented by

Vomberg & Schart

Holder · RCD owner

Wolfseason Limitedvia PDF extraction

United Kingdom (GB)

Kemphouse, 152-160 City road, London EC1V 2NX, United Kingdom

Represented by

Anwaltskanzlei Dr. Graf

Thorsten Graf

Prior art cited (3)

Registered RCD

head lamp

RCD No 001677642-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2010-03-11

Web disclosureAnnex 1

printout concerning Zweibrüder H14/H14R head lamps

testberichte.de · testberichte.de

CatalogAnnex 2

catalog pages depicting the H14 design

LED LENSER Creating New Worlds of Light · Zweibrüder catalogue

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying mainly on its earlier RCD for a head lamp and additional web and catalogue material.
  • Holder argued the cited material was insufficient, identified multiple design differences, and claimed market saturation made small differences enough to preserve validity.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the earlier RCD through its bulletin publication, found broad design freedom for head lamps, and treated the holder's market-density links as inadmissible unsupported references.
  • It held that the similar lamp housing, grooves, band arrangement, and overall proportions created the same overall impression, so the contested design lacked individual character and was invalidated.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

26.02

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