Invalidity · first instance · 2024-06-18
000121198
Contested design: 004555001-0006
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 004555001-0006 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
Mu Lin SRLSvia PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Giusti 14, 20154 Milano, Italy
Represented by
Paolo Vercesi
Holder · RCD owner
Yuyao Hilite Electric Co., LTDvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
CE23, Far East Industrial Park, Yuyao City - Zhejiang Prov 315400, China
Represented by
Prior art cited (10)
Lamps
RCD No 000100839-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2004-02-24
Lamps
RCD No 000217104-0071 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2004-11-02
Lamps
RCD No 000217104-0073 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2004-11-02
Lighting fixtures
RCD No 000397864-0037 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2005-11-01
Lighting fixtures
RCD No 000397864-0038 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2005-11-01
Exterior lights
RCD No 001622911-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2009-10-26
Lighting elements
RCD No 001252324-0015 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-01-14
Luminaires, Lighting elements
RCD No 001295539-0007 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-11-28
Torcheres [floor lamps], Lamps, Floor lamps, Lights
RCD No 002219196-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2013-04-24
Lights, Lamps
RCD No 002455725-0025 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-05-16
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant claimed lack of novelty and individual character over earlier RCDs D1 to D10, arguing the lamp's base, stem and conical shade matched common prior designs.
- ›The holder argued the contested lamp had distinctive visual features, including its proportions and top button, and said any crowded state of the art made the informed user more attentive to differences.
- ›The Division disregarded belated new prior designs, accepted D1 to D10 as disclosed, found the designer's freedom for lamps high, and held the cited prior designs created different overall impressions.
- ›Because the differences were not immaterial, the contested design retained individual character and novelty, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000119620 vs XAL GmbH | 2026-04-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000119599 vs XAL GmbH | 2026-04-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000119619 vs XAL GmbH | 2026-04-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000131624 vs NOVOWISE LTD | 2026-03-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000130242 vs DMUSEUM Inc. | 2026-03-05 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000130762 vs TURISPORT, S.L. | 2026-02-24 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000127916 vs Volvo Car Corporation | 2026-02-11 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000128875 vs YUYAO HILITE ELECTRIC CO.,LTD | 2025-11-03 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |