Invalidity · first instance · 2026-04-15
000119620
Contested design: 002678847-0010
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected; the applicant must bear the holder's costs, fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen EU-Geschmacksmusters Nr. 002678847-0010 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
LTV Leuchten & Lampen Vertriebsgesellschaft m.b.H.via PDF extraction
Austria (AT)
Brunn am Gebirge, Austria
Represented by
Prior art cited (15)
Große Art Deco Bauhaus Hexagon Deckenleuchte
disclosed 2016-10-09
Tiffany-Glas Deckenleuchte
www.casalumi.de · casalumi.de
RAAK HOLLAND Sechseck
etsy.com · etsy.com
Deckenlampen des Herstellers ERCO GmbH
www.pamono.at · pamono.at
Sechseckige LED Deckenlampe
www.amazon.de · amazon.de · disclosed 2019-06-13
Akkustik Spanndecke ACOUSTIC LIGHT
www.archiexpo.de · archiexpo.de
Volcano Wandlampe
www.pamono.at · pamono.at
Sechseckige Wandlampe von Albano Poli
www.pamono.at · pamono.at
Halo2 Hexagon hexagonal surface-mounted pendant lights
www.uebex.com · uebex.com
Extract concerning lights installed in the Forum building in Barcelona
Wikipedia · Wikipedia
hexagonal LED light
201030163935.4 · Designview · disclosed 2011-02-02
Chinese lamp design
200730315437.5 · Designview · disclosed 2008-10-29
Chinese lamp design
201030668277.4 · Designview · disclosed 2011-05-18
Chinese lamp design
200930021325.8 · Designview · disclosed 2010-07-28
older EU design for a lamp
EUGM Nr. 2568766-0005 · EUIPO · disclosed 2014-11-11
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on multiple lamp disclosures and Chinese designs D1-D4 plus earlier EU design D5.
- ›The holder argued the contested lamp's central hexagonal opening, flat construction, and overall configuration were absent from the cited designs, and several web exhibits were not properly disclosed.
- ›The Division rejected oral-hearing, witness, and expert requests, found exhibits D-W insufficiently proven as prior disclosures, but accepted D1-D5 as disclosed prior art.
- ›Comparing D1-D5 with the contested design, the Division found the shared hexagonal base form commonplace and the overall impressions different; the invalidity application was rejected and costs awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK
- MemberThorsten ICKENROTH
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| 000126376 vs deluxe holding ApS | 2025-10-06 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |