DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003619881-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-09-23

000115469

Contested design: 003619881-0003

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

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0036198810003 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

Lidl Vertriebs-GmbH & Co. KG (Anzing)via PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Gewerbepark 1, 85646 Anzing, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Liquidleds Lighting Corpvia PDF extraction

Taiwan (TW)

Suite A2, 9F., No. 333, Sec. 2, Dunhua S. Rd., Da-an Distr., Taipei City 10669, Taiwan

Prior art cited (2)

CatalogD1⚠ rejected as evidence

Bailey Alva LED light bulb

Model No 80100038654 · Bailey Lights / Bailey catalogue · disclosed 2016-09-14

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

SIM Lighting Simbulb clear LED light bulb

www.simlighting.com; https://tplighting.hk · SIM Lighting website / tplighting.hk

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(2)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on LED bulb designs D1 and D2 disclosed before the filing date.
  • Holder argued D1 fell within the Article 7(2) grace period because Bailey's disclosures derived from the holder, and D2 created a different overall impression.
  • The Division found the holder proved D1 resulted from its own prior disclosure and sales to Bailey, so D1 was disregarded under Article 7(2) CDR.
  • The Division found D2's disclosure date unproven and, in any event, D2 gave a different overall impression; the invalidity application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
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

26.04

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
000121816

vs AMV Technology s.r.o.

2024-07-12Art 25(1)(b)267
000121836

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