On 5 September 2022, LTV Leuchten & Lampen Vertriebs GmbH (hereinafter LTV) filed an application for invalidity against a design registered in the European Union in the “Lamps” category .The application was based on the lack of novelty and individual character of the contested design in relation to other earlier unregistered designs. In order to prove the disclosure of these earlier designs, LTV requested the Cancellation Division to question its representative and several witnesses, obtain the opinion of an industrial design expert and hold an oral hearing.

The Cancellation Division rejected this request because the disclosure of the earlier designs had not been sufficiently substantiated in the application for cancellation. Therefore, the taking of evidence and the holding of an oral hearing were refused. In response to this decision, LTV lodged an appeal and submitted new documents relating to other earlier designs registered in Italy. However, the appeal was dismissed because the documents provided were not relevant or sufficient to prove the disclosure of the earlier designs. The applicant appealed against the decision before the General Court, alleging a procedural irregularity due to the refusal to hear the evidence requested, as the disclosure of the earlier designs could only be proven through witness testimony.

The General Court also rejected the practice of the evidence requested by the applicant, since it is the interested party who must provide the facts constituting the disclosure date. In this regard, the applicant could have submitted documentary evidence or written statements from the witnesses. However, in the present proceedings, there was insufficient evidence to suggest that this was the most appropriate method of proving a disclosure date from several years back. In its submissions, the applicant merely stated in general terms that the requested questioning of the testimonies would have made it possible to prove the date, place and manner of the disclosure. However, the applicant did not set out the specific circumstances that would have justified the relevance of questioning the witnesses

Regarding the designs submitted in the context of the appeal before the Board of Appeal, these cannot be considered in the proceedings as they extend the application for a declaration of invalidity, the subject matter of which determines the dispute. Once an application for a declaration of invalidity has been filed, it is not possible to introduce other earlier designs that could be used to challenge the contested design, unless there is a legitimate reason to do so. The General Court reiterates that the Board of Appeal cannot consider entirely new evidence relating to earlier designs that are not mentioned in the application for a declaration of invalidity.

In view of the foregoing, the General Court confirms the Board of Appeal’s decision and dismisses the action brought by LTV, as the prior disclosure of the designs claimed in the declaration of invalidity has not been proven. Therefore, it is not necessary to examine the singularity of the contested design, as this must be assessed by comparison with one or more precisely designated and individually mentioned designs that have been selected and determined from among the set of designs that have been selected from among those made available to the public.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 December 2025 in Case T-81/25