DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006657649-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-05-13

000113023

Contested design: 006657649-0003

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 006657649-0003 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Imagilights Bvbavia PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

Nijverheidslaan 62C, 8540 Deerlijk, Belgium

Represented by

K.O.B. N.V.

Holder · RCD owner

Power Beauty (Dongguan) Industrial Co. Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

No.1, Eastern Industry Park, Shujiu Village, Changping Town, Dongguan, Guangdong Province, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Manuel de Arpe Tejero

Prior art cited (3)

Registered RCDD1

table lamp

Community design No 002876102-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-12-07

PublicationD2

Moments collection table lamps, including MOM-002 and MOM-005

Company Profile / Moments table lighting collection brochures and related Facebook posts · Applicant brochures and Facebook profile · disclosed 2016-05-01

Registered RCDD3

table lamp

Community design No 002876102-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-12-07

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 25(1)(d)Article 7Article 6(1)Article 5(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character and for conflict with earlier design rights, relying on earlier lamp designs D1 to D3 and alleging bad faith.
  • Holder filed no observations in reply to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found bad faith inadmissible as an invalidity ground, Article 25(1)(d) inapplicable because the earlier registered designs were published before the contested filing date, and D1 to D3 duly disclosed.
  • Comparing the base, tubular element and lampshade, the Division held the contested lamp created a different overall impression and was also not identical to the prior designs.
  • The invalidity application was rejected in full and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder's representation costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI

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

26.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000128736

vs Senjia (Dongguan)Electronic Technology Co., LTD

2025-07-11Art 25(1)(b)267
000125015

vs Honglan YIN

2025-02-10Art 25(1)(b)267
000124516

vs YUYAO HILITE ELECTRIC CO.,LTD

2024-12-19Art 25(1)(b)267
000121836

vs AMV Technology s.r.o.

2024-07-12Art 25(1)(b)267
000121816

vs AMV Technology s.r.o.

2024-07-12Art 25(1)(b)267
000121120

vs DELTA LIGHT NV

2024-06-18Art 25(1)(b)267
000121119

vs DELTA LIGHT NV

2024-06-13Art 25(1)(b)267
000120900

vs DELTA LIGHT NV

2024-06-10Art 25(1)(b)267