Invalidity · first instance · 2025-06-30
000124555
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 EU 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
SZA Schilling, Zutt & Anschütz Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Mannheim, Germany
Holder · RCD owner
Yuyao Hilite Eelectric CO., LTDvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
Yuyao City - Zhejiang prov, China
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
Poldina by Zafferano lamp
La Redoute website / Google Search / Dallas Lightovation
lamp
000679030-0003 · DesignView / European Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2007-04-03
lamp
002551580-0003 · DesignView / European Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-11-24
lamp
301862846 · WIPO Design Database / China · disclosed 2012-03-14
lamp
402017100684-0022 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office database · disclosed 2017-10-06
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on the Poldina lamp and designs D2 to D5 and arguing the switch was technically dictated or insignificant.
- ›The holder disputed disclosure of D1, relied on affidavits and web-archive evidence, and argued the contested lamp's proportions, base, stem transitions, and top details created a distinct overall impression.
- ›The Division found D1 was not proven disclosed under Article 7, and any 2017 trade-fair disclosure attributable to the designer would in any event fall within the Article 7(2) grace period.
- ›Comparing D2 to D5 with the contested design, the Division held the differences in base shape, stem structure, proportions, and top details produced a different overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The invalidity grounds under Article 25(1)(b) failed, so the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000119619 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 |
| 000119620 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 |