Invalidity · first instance · 2024-06-18
000121120
Contested design: 003759844-0003
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder’s fixed costs of EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 003759844-0003 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 (7)
Eltor STATE POLE outdoor light design
STATE POLE · Eltor catalogue and website/account extracts
HESS LINEA lighting design
LINEA · HESS catalogue
HESS DALVIK lighting design
DALVIK · HESS catalogues
ROSA CUT light design
CUT · ROSA catalogue and email exchange
ROSA BEAM light design
BEAM · ROSA catalogue
Fone Light Technologies SHADE 126 light design
SHADE 126 · Fone Light Technologies catalogue
Fone Light Technologies SHADE 127 light design
SHADE 127 · Fone Light Technologies catalogue
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant argued the contested luminaire was not clearly representable as a design and lacked novelty and individual character over earlier outdoor-lighting designs D1 to D7.
- ›Holder replied the contested pole-and-lamp configuration was clearly shown, most alleged prior disclosures were unproven, and the contested design remained new and individually distinctive.
- ›The Division rejected bad-faith and newly raised technical-function and additional-prior-design arguments as inadmissible, while admitting supplementary evidence tied to already pleaded designs.
- ›The Division found disclosure unproven for D1, D2 and D4 to D7, and sufficiently proven only for D3 through third-party HESS catalogues predating the contested filing date.
- ›Comparing the contested design only with D3, the Division found a different overall impression and upheld novelty and individual character, so the application was rejected in full.
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 |
| 000121119 vs DELTA LIGHT NV | 2024-06-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000120900 vs DELTA LIGHT NV | 2024-06-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000123474 vs José Joaquim Durães | 2024-04-24 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |