DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003838077-0014

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-03-06

000121238

Contested design: 003838077-0014

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

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 003838077-0014 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

Eltor d.o.o.via PDF extraction

HR

Industrijka Ulica 18, Lovrin, Pazin 52000, Croatia

Represented by

Ines Mandekić

Holder · RCD owner

Delta Light NVvia PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

Muizelstraat 2, 8560 Wevelgem (Moorsele), Belgium

Represented by

Crowell & Moring

Prior art cited (9)

CatalogD1⚠ rejected as evidence

STATE POLE light

Eltor catalogues, account extracts and stock records

CatalogD2

LINEA light

HESS catalogue

CatalogD3

DALVIK light

HESS catalogue and website

CatalogD4⚠ rejected as evidence

GENUA light

HESS website extract

CatalogD5⚠ rejected as evidence

CUT light

ROSA email and catalogue

CatalogD6⚠ rejected as evidence

BEAM light

ROSA catalogue

CatalogD7⚠ rejected as evidence

SHADE 126 light

Fone Light Technologies catalogue

CatalogD8⚠ rejected as evidence

SHADE 125 light

Fone Light Technologies catalogue

Web disclosureD9⚠ rejected as evidence

DEAL light

https://www.dael.pt · dael.pt catalogue and website

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(a)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 design clarity, novelty and individual character, relying on nine earlier lighting designs and alleging the holder acted in bad faith.
  • The holder argued the contested luminaire was clearly represented, differed from the cited designs, several disclosures were unproven, and the applicant's installed products were copies.
  • The Division found the contested registration sufficiently clear under Article 3(a), and treated the bad-faith allegation as inadmissible because it is not an Article 25(1) invalidity ground.
  • Most cited prior designs were not proved disclosed before 3 April 2017; only D2 and D3 were considered, and both created a different overall impression from the contested design.
  • The invalidity application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed representation costs of EUR 400.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO

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