Invalidity · first instance · 2024-06-10
000120900
Contested design: 003759844-0001
Outcome
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 003759844-0001 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
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
Prior art cited (9)
STATE POLE / STATE SINGLE outdoor light
ELTOR_CATALOGUE_2009; ELTOR_CATALOGUE; Documents 10-16 · Eltor catalogues and website/account extracts
LINEA light by HESS
HESS_CATALOGUE_MARCH_2016; Documents 2, 6-8 · HESS catalogue
DALVIK light by HESS
HESS_CATALOGUE_MARCH_2016; Hess Catalogue 2014; Documents 2, 19-23 · HESS catalogues and website extract
GENUA light by HESS
Document 17 · HESS website/catalogue extract
CUT light
Document 4 · ROSA email exchange
BEAM light
ROSA_CATALOGUE; Document 5 · ROSA catalogue
SHADE 126 light
Document 9 · Fone Light Technologies catalogue
SHADE 125 light
Document 9 · Fone Light Technologies catalogue
DAEL / SQ Cratos / PILAR SQ light
Documents 18, 24 · dael.pt catalogue and website
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of a protectable design, lack of novelty, and lack of individual character, relying on nine earlier outdoor-lighting designs and also alleging bad faith.
- ›The holder argued the contested luminaire design was distinctive, that several cited disclosures were inadequately proven or late, and that the compared designs created different overall impressions on the informed user.
- ›The Division held the registered representation clearly showed a luminaire and therefore met Article 3(a) CDR; bad faith and a later technical-function ground were inadmissible.
- ›Most cited prior designs were not proven disclosed before the filing date; only D2 and D3 were accepted, and neither deprived the contested design of novelty or individual character.
- ›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
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000128736 vs Senjia (Dongguan)Electronic Technology Co., LTD | 2025-07-11 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000125015 vs Honglan YIN | 2025-02-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000124516 vs YUYAO HILITE ELECTRIC CO.,LTD | 2024-12-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000121816 vs AMV Technology s.r.o. | 2024-07-12 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000121836 vs AMV Technology s.r.o. | 2024-07-12 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000121120 vs DELTA LIGHT NV | 2024-06-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000121119 vs DELTA LIGHT NV | 2024-06-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000123474 vs José Joaquim Durães | 2024-04-24 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |