DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005647708-0010

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-02-11

000111164

Contested design: 005647708-0010

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 005647708010 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

Lidl Digital International GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Stiftsbergstraße 1, 74172 Neckarsulm, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

Ningbo Hanyuan Lighting Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

657 Xiufeng Road, GaoQiao Industry Zone, Yinzhou District, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315174, Volksrepublik China

Prior art cited (5)

CatalogD1

disc-shaped wall light from the Albert catalog 2017/2018

Albert catalog 2017/2018 / Wayback Machine / reuter.de · disclosed 2017-05-12

CatalogD2

pear-shaped wall light from the Albert catalog 2017/2018

Albert catalog 2017/2018 / Wayback Machine / reuter.de · disclosed 2017-05-12

Registered RCDD3

registered wall light design

RCD No 004057008-0005 · EUIPO database

National designD4

Chinese lamp design

Chinese design No. 201530434102 · Chinese design register

National designD5

Chinese lamp design

Chinese design No. 201630587389.4 · Chinese design register

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over five earlier lighting designs, D1 to D5.
  • The holder argued the contested design was new and individual, and disputed disclosure of D1, D2, D4 and D5.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of all five prior designs, including the late-filed reuter.de evidence supporting D1 and D2.
  • It found none of D1 to D5 identical to, or creating the same overall impression as, the contested wall light design.
  • The invalidity grounds under Article 25(1)(b) failed, so the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload 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
000119599

vs XAL GmbH

2026-04-15Art 25(1)(b)267
000119620

vs XAL GmbH

2026-04-15Art 25(1)(b)267
000119619

vs XAL GmbH

2026-04-15Art 25(1)(b)267
000131624

vs NOVOWISE LTD

2026-03-27Art 25(1)(b)267
000130242

vs DMUSEUM Inc.

2026-03-05Art 25(1)(b)267
000130762

vs TURISPORT, S.L.

2026-02-24Art 25(1)(b)267
000127916

vs Volvo Car Corporation

2026-02-11Art 25(1)(b)267
000128875

vs YUYAO HILITE ELECTRIC CO.,LTD

2025-11-03Art 25(1)(b)267