DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002912014-0022

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-11-27

000118898

Contested design: 002912014-0022

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 002912014-0022 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

RZB Rudolf Zimmermann, Bamberg GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Rheinstr. 16, 96052 Bamberg, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

BEGA Gantenbrink-Leuchten KG

Germany (DE)

Hennenbusch, 58708 Menden, Deutschland

Prior art cited (8)

Registered RCDD1

luminaire

GGM 2688291-0004

Registered RCDD2

luminaire

GGM 343355-0017 · EUIPO e-Search · disclosed 2005-05-20

Registered RCDD3

luminaire

GGM 514088-0004 · EUIPO e-Search · disclosed 2006-04-19

Registered RCDD4

luminaire

GGM 725056-0009 · EUIPO e-Search · disclosed 2007-05-18

Registered RCDD5

luminaire

GGM 2333245-0007 · EUIPO e-Search · disclosed 2013-10-25

Registered RCDD6

luminaire

GGM 1289599-0001 · EUIPO e-Search · disclosed 2013-10-02

National designD7

luminaire

Deutsches Design 402011004195-0009 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 2011-12-23

National designD8

luminaire

Deutsches Design 40004467-0001 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over earlier RCDs D1 to D6 and German designs D7 and D8.
  • The remitted case focused on D2 to D8 after the Board had already held that D1 did not deprive the contested design of individual character.
  • The Division found the cited designs disclosed, but the contested luminaire's additional outer glass over the diffuser and differing proportions created a different overall impression.
  • Invalidity was rejected because the evidence did not establish the pleaded ground under Article 25(1)(b); the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload 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
000119620

vs XAL GmbH

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

vs XAL GmbH

2026-04-15Art 25(1)(b)267
000119619

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
000127916

vs Volvo Car Corporation

2026-02-11Art 25(1)(b)267
000128875

vs YUYAO HILITE ELECTRIC CO.,LTD

2025-11-03Art 25(1)(b)267