DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000684360-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-09-26

000119621

Contested design: 000684360-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity 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. 000684360-0001 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, Österreich

Holder · RCD owner

XAL GmbH

Austria (AT)

Auer-Welsbach-Gasse 36, 8055 Graz, Österreich

Prior art cited (3)

CatalogBeilage A⚠ rejected as evidence

Model II Corner Y LED product insert from PXF Lighting

PXF Lighting

Web disclosureBeilage B⚠ rejected as evidence

Model Anour from the Danish company Anour

https://anour.dk/contact-us/ · Anour website

Web disclosureBeilage C⚠ rejected as evidence

Model AL-OL901 from A.L. Lighting Limited

AL-OL901 · A.L. Lighting Limited

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on three earlier lamp disclosures and requesting oral proceedings plus witness and expert evidence.
  • The holder denied any proven pre-2007 disclosure of the cited designs and argued the compared lamp designs differed in width and rounded end features.
  • The Division refused oral proceedings as unnecessary and held the applicant had not proven disclosure under Article 7 with sufficiently dated, independent written evidence.
  • Because disclosure of all cited earlier designs was unproven, novelty and individual character were not examined further and the invalidity application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha Galperin
  • MemberWolfgang Schramek
  • MemberBenjamin van Bavel

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