Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-01-19
R0941/2016-3
Contested design: 000198387-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the holder bears the costs of both the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Inhaberin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
AUTEC AGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Daimlerstr. 61, D-90441 Nürnberg, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Porscheplatz 1, D-70435 Stuttgart, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
Heckspoiler für ein Kraftfahrzeug (Porsche 911 Baureihe 996 — Seitenansicht)
Deutsches Design Nr. M9705639-0001 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 1997-12-10
Kraftfahrzeug, insbesondere Sportwagen (Porsche 911 Baureihe 996 — Seitenansicht)
Deutsches Design Nr. 49906704-0001 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 1999-11-10
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Porsche AG (holder) appealed the invalidation of its RCD for the Porsche 911 (Baureihe 997), arguing that the informed user of sports cars has elevated attention, that iconic design history creates designer-freedom constraints, and that differences in front lights, bumpers, spoiler, mirrors and tail design produce a different overall impression over predecessor D1 (Baureihe 996).
- ›AUTEC AG (applicant) contended that the Porsche 911's unchanged generational silhouette is central to Porsche's marketing, differences are barely visible and of interest only to enthusiasts, and market expectations do not restrict designer freedom.
- ›The Board rejected the argument that model-iconic status restricts designer freedom; confirmed the informed user is a general car user, not a Porsche specialist; and found the side-view similarities (body shape, doors, windows, headlamp position) dominate, with differences in bumpers and air intakes being insufficient to alter the overall impression.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; both D1 and D2 preclude individual character; the holder bears costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberG. Humphreys
- Registrarp.o. F. Piaser
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R1015/2024-3 | 2024-11-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R1719/2023-3 | 2024-06-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R1747/2022-3 | 2024-01-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R0367/2022-3 | 2023-06-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R0082/2023-3 | 2023-06-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R0081/2023-3 | 2023-06-15 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R2025/2021-3 | 2022-07-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |