Invalidity · first instance · 2024-10-03
000124836
Contested design: 007213152-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay 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 007213152-0001 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
Yanfang Chenvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
No. 16, Group 8, Yifu Village, Wantouqiao Town, Wugang City, Hunan Province, China
Represented by
Maria Ioannides
Holder · RCD owner
Ningbo Ucome Lighting Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
No. 3, Shaojiadu, Zhushan Village, Lizhou Street, Yuyao City, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315400, China
Represented by
Prior art cited (10)
lamp
German design registration No 40404466-0040 · Germany · disclosed 2005-01-10
lamp
German design registration No 40700516-0077 · Germany · disclosed 2007-06-09
lamps
Community design No 002015370-0030 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-04-10
lamp
German design registration No 402012003880-0001 · Germany · disclosed 2013-11-29
torcheres / floor lamps / lamps / lights
Community design No 002219196-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2013-04-24
lamp
Chinese design patent No CN 303250686 S · China · disclosed 2015-06-17
lamp
United States Design Patent No US D611,185 S · United States · disclosed 2010-03-02
lamp
Chinese design patent No CN 304484349 S · China · disclosed 2018-01-30
lamp
German design registration No 402018201438-0008 · Germany · disclosed 2018-12-14
lamp
Spanish design registration No 0528436-28 · Spain
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on ten earlier lamp designs, arguing only immaterial differences separated them from the contested design.
- ›The holder said several prior designs were insufficiently evidenced, design J lacked proof of publication, and the contested lamp created a distinct overall impression in a crowded sector.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure for prior designs A to I but rejected design J as evidence because its publication date was not independently proven under Article 7.
- ›Comparing each accepted prior design individually, the Division found differences in proportions, lampshades, stems, bases, colours, materials, and cords sufficient to create a different overall impression.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected because the contested design retained individual character and novelty, and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
- MemberCarlos MATEO PÉREZ
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| itItalian | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | 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 |