DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004555001-0006

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-11-03

000128875

Contested design: 004555001-0006

EUDR

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 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

Zheng Chenvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province, China

Represented by

Qiang Zhou

Holder · RCD owner

Yuyao Hilite Eelectric CO., LTDvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Yuyao City - Zhejiang prov, China

Prior art cited (4)

Registered RCDD1

lamp

RCD No 000679030-0003 · EU Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2007-04-03

National designD2

lamp

CN 300856650 D · Chinese Bulletin · disclosed 2008-12-03

Registered RCDD3

lamp

RCD No 002551580-0003 · EU Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-11-24

National designD4

lamp

402017100684-0022 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office · disclosed 2017-10-06

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested standing lamp lacked novelty and individual character over earlier designs D1 to D4.
  • The holder argued that the contested design had been recognised as innovative, that prior courts had upheld its validity, and that its proportions, top surface, and central on/off button differentiated it from the prior designs.
  • The Invalidity Division accepted disclosure of D1 to D4, found high designer freedom for standing lamps, and held that the market evidence did not show a saturation requiring unusually fine distinctions.
  • Comparing each cited design with the contested lamp, the Division found visible differences in the base, stand, lampshade structure, proportions, and top-button configuration, creating a different overall impression.
  • The invalidity grounds under Articles 25(1)(b), 5(1)(b), and 6(1)(b) EUDR failed, so the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberEmmanuel COLLIN
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES

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

26.04

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000119619

vs XAL GmbH

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

vs XAL GmbH

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

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
000126376

vs deluxe holding ApS

2025-10-06Art 25(1)(b)267