DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001098511-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-07-07

000119618

Contested design: 001098511-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the invalidity 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. 001098511-0001 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

LTV Leuchten & Lampen Vertriebsgesellschaft m.b.H.via PDF extraction

Austria (AT)

Industriestraße B Nr. 4, 2345 Brunn am Gebirge, Osterreich

Holder · RCD owner

XAL GmbH

Austria (AT)

Auer-Welsbach-Gasse 36, 8055 Graz, Österreich

Prior art cited (7)

OtherBeilage N⚠ rejected as evidence

image of model "IRIS SK70 Rainbow"

OtherBeilagen O-Q⚠ rejected as evidence

images of model "SC150" and predecessor models

disclosed 2014-11-26

OtherBeilage R⚠ rejected as evidence

image of model "Contura"

disclosed 2022-01-27

Prior useBeilage S⚠ rejected as evidence

image of a linear ceiling light marketed in Austria

Austria

Prior useBeilage T⚠ rejected as evidence

images of linear-square ceiling lights on the Austrian market

Austria

CatalogBeilage U⚠ rejected as evidence

product data sheet for model "LADO"

disclosed 2019-12-30

CatalogBeilage V⚠ rejected as evidence

product data sheet for model "NOK"

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant claimed the contested RCD lacked novelty and individual character in light of several earlier lighting designs allegedly on the market before 2009.
  • The holder disputed that any cited exhibit had been disclosed before the filing date and argued the contested design remained new and had individual character.
  • The Invalidity Division held that the exhibits did not prove when and under what circumstances the alleged earlier designs were made available to the public, and witness or expert evidence could not cure that evidential gap.
  • Because disclosure of the earlier designs was not established under Article 7(1), the Division did not need to assess novelty or individual character and rejected the application.

Deciding panel

  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN

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
000119619

vs XAL GmbH

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

vs XAL GmbH

2026-04-15Art 25(1)(b)267
000119599

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