Invalidity · first instance · 2021-11-12
000113624
Contested design: 004031201-0004
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 004031201-0004 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
Light Tec Limitedvia PDF extraction
Hong Kong (HK)
Unit 908-910, 9/F, Prosperity Center, 25 Chong Yip Street, Kwun Tong, Hong Kong SAR, Sonderverwaltungszone Hongkong der Volksrepublik China
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
DecoTrend GmbH
Germany (DE)
zur Drehscheibe 5, 92637 Weiden, Deutschland
Prior art cited (3)
18-point illuminated decorative stars in sizes L, XL and Jumbo
http://deco-plant.de (Internet Archive snapshot) · deco-plant.de via Internet Archive · disclosed 2016-02-22
Deco-Plant outdoor decorative star Jumbo, 18 points, 100 cm GB
ASIN B0166P97X8 · Amazon.de · disclosed 2015-10-05
foldable lantern with depicted 18-point star
US Patent No. 1,653,206 · United States patent publication · disclosed 1927-12-20
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant argued the contested 18-point illuminated star lacked individual character over earlier Deco-Plant stars shown on archived website pages and Amazon, and over US Patent No. 1,653,206.
- ›Holder replied that the contested design reflected the Sterntaler star, not the Annaberger folding star, and differed in geometry, construction principle, and the detailed shape of its rays.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of D1 to D3, identified a broad design freedom for decorative illuminated stars, and compared the contested design with the earlier folding-star disclosures.
- ›It found the indented, more complex rays of the earlier folding stars and the contested design's cylindrical bulb fitting created a different overall impression for the informed user.
- ›The invalidity application was therefore rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberIvanka IVANOVA
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000119599 vs XAL GmbH | 2026-04-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000119619 vs XAL GmbH | 2026-04-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000119620 vs XAL GmbH | 2026-04-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000131624 vs NOVOWISE LTD | 2026-03-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000130242 vs DMUSEUM Inc. | 2026-03-05 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000130762 vs TURISPORT, S.L. | 2026-02-24 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000127916 vs Volvo Car Corporation | 2026-02-11 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000128875 vs YUYAO HILITE ELECTRIC CO.,LTD | 2025-11-03 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |