DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015038956-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-08-28

000125398

Contested design: 015038956-0004

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 0150389560004 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

Sompex Im- und Export, Handelsgesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung & Co. Kommanditgesellschaftvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Werftstraße 20-22, 40549 Düsseldorf, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Nan Zheng

China (CN)

One of the public collective households, No. 93, Huangshi N. Rd., Baiyun, Guangzhou 510080, China

Represented by

Ákos Süle

Prior art cited (5)

Registered RCDD1

table lamp

RCD No 0087211200006 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2021-11-02

Registered RCDD2

lamp with a bottle support

RCD No 0087211200007 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2021-11-02

Registered RCDD3

commercialised lamp design shown in colour

RCD No 0087211200008 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2021-11-02

Catalog

Lamella Corks for 0.5-1.5 litre bottles

article No 452492 · ich-zapfe.de product catalogue and webpage

Patent

lamp concept for insertion into a bottle neck

WO 2023/020666 A1 · international patent publication · disclosed 2023-02-23

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 25(1)(d)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity under Articles 25(1)(b) and 25(1)(d), relying on earlier RCDs D1-D3 and Lamella Corks material to challenge novelty, individual character, and prior-right conflict.
  • Holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division held Article 25(1)(d) did not apply because the earlier RCD had already been published before the contested design's filing date.
  • Comparing the contested lamp individually with D1-D3, the Division found visible differences in the lampshade, base, stem, and top details, so the contested design remained new and had individual character.
  • The application was rejected, and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO

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
000127916

vs Volvo Car Corporation

2026-02-11Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)269
000116207

vs   Grzegorz CHUDY - Z. P-H-U. „FORMES TOYS" mgr inż. Grzegorz Chudy

2022-05-25Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)269
000119619

vs XAL GmbH

2026-04-15Art 25(1)(b)267
000119620

vs XAL GmbH

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

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