DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003069616-0008

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-05-28

000109285

Contested design: 003069616-0008

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested registered Community design is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Se estima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad. 2. Se declara nulo el dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado nº 003069616-0008. 3. Se condena al titular a que sufrague las costas del solicitante, que se fijan en 750 EUR.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Soluciones de Iluminación LED S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

C. Sant Joan de la Salle (Ed Technova) nº 42, 3º, 08022 Barcelona, España

Represented by

ZBM Patents

Holder · RCD owner

Vibia Lighting, S.L.U.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

C. Progrés, 4, 08850 Gavà, España

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure

VIBIA Algorithm hanging-lamp collection corresponding to the contested design

archiproducts.com / archiportale.com articles on VIBIA Algorithm · archiproducts.com and archiportale.com · disclosed 2015-04-13

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, arguing that the VIBIA Algorithm lamp design had been publicly disclosed online on 13 April 2015, outside the grace period.
  • The holder disputed the reliability of the website evidence, argued the collection was first presented on 14 April 2015 at Euroluce, and said any disclosure was within the grace period.
  • The Division found the Archiproducts and Archiportale extracts, supported by the applicant's expert report, sufficiently proved public disclosure on 13 April 2015 and that the sector could reasonably have known of it.
  • Comparing the earlier disclosure with the contested design, the Division found only immaterial differences, held the designs identical, and concluded the contested RCD lacked novelty.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO

Decision files

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