Invalidity · first instance · 2021-05-28
000109341
Contested design: 003069616-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, the contested registered Community design No 003069616-0001 is declared invalid, and the holder must bear 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 003069616-0001. 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
Holder · RCD owner
Vibia Lighting, S.L.U.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
C. Progrés, 4, 08850 Gavà, España
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
Article 'Algorithm: Vibia presents new collection designed by Toan Nguyen' showing VIBIA's Algorithm lamp collection.
https://www.archiproducts.com · archiproducts.com · disclosed 2015-04-13
Article 'Globi luminosi sospesi, disciplinati secondo un ordine matemático: Vibia presenta Algorithm, la nuova collezione firmata Toan Nguyen' showing VIBIA's Algorithm lamp collection.
https://www.archiportale.com · archiportale.com · disclosed 2015-04-13
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested lamp design lacked novelty and individual character because VIBIA's Algorithm lamps had been disclosed online on 13 April 2015, outside the grace period.
- ›The holder disputed the reliability and legal sufficiency of the web evidence, maintained disclosure occurred from 14 April 2015 at Euroluce, and denied the earlier publications were reasonably knowable.
- ›The Division found the Archiproducts and Archiportale extracts were objective and credible evidence of public disclosure on 13 April 2015 and that specialized EU circles could reasonably have known them.
- ›Comparing the earlier lamp with the contested design, the Division found only insignificant differences, held the designs identical, and declared the RCD invalid for lack of novelty.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000130945 vs Space Copenhagen Design ApS | 2026-05-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 8 |
| 000131284 vs Venture MK UG (haftungsbeschränkt) | 2026-04-13 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 8 |
| 000131264 vs Venture MK UG (haftungsbeschränkt) | 2026-04-13 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 8 |
| 000131304 vs Venture MK UG (haftungsbeschränkt) | 2026-04-13 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 8 |
| 000131245 vs Venture MK UG (haftungsbeschränkt) | 2026-04-13 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 8 |
| 000131366 vs DANMAR TECH SL | 2026-04-08 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 8 |
| 000131247 vs chao zhai | 2026-04-02 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 8 |
| 000129540 vs Ningbo Wilder Outdoor Products Co., Ltd. | 2026-03-24 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 8 |