DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007213152-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-02-19

000120240

Contested design: 007213152-0001

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 007213152-0001 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

Ming Wang Yuvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Room A-302-2, Area A, No. 99 Xiqing Road, Yuanhe Street, Xiangcheng District, Suzhou City, Jiangsu, China

Represented by

H&A

Holder · RCD owner

Ningbo Ucome Lighting CO., LTD.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

No. 3, Shaojiadu, Zhushan Village, Lizhou Street, Yuyao City, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315400, China

Prior art cited (5)

Registered RCDD1

lamp

RCD No 006953238-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2019-10-10

Registered RCDD2

lamp

RCD No 006953238-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2019-10-10

National designD3⚠ rejected as evidence

lamp

CN 305673371 S (application No 201930541146.0) · Chinese design patent publication · disclosed 2020-03-31

National designD4

lamp

CN 304484349 S (application No 201730399443.7) · Chinese design patent publication · disclosed 2018-01-30

National designD5⚠ rejected as evidence

lamp

UK registered design No 90026503330045 · GOV.UK Find a registered design

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant claimed the contested lamp lacked novelty and individual character over prior designs D1 to D5 disclosed before the filing date.
  • The holder argued D1 to D3 fell within the Article 7(2) grace period, D3 was published after filing, and D4 and D5 created a different overall impression.
  • The Division disregarded D1 and D2 under the grace period, found D3 and D5 were not validly proven disclosures, and accepted only D4 as prior art.
  • Comparing D4 with the contested design, the Division found differences in proportions, colour, visible lamp-shade features, and other details sufficient to create a different overall impression.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed representation costs of EUR 400.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberIneta GALUBICKE
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENÉ

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

26.05

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000119620

vs XAL GmbH

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

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