Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-01-19
R0945/2016-3
Contested design: 001230593-0001
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)
Kraftwagen (Porsche 911 Baureihe 997 — multiple views)
RCD Nr. 735428-0001 · Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster-Register · disclosed 2008-06-23
Personenkraftwagen (Porsche 911 — multiple views)
RCD Nr. 633748-0001 · Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster-Register · disclosed 2007-01-09
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Porsche AG (holder) appealed the invalidation of its RCD for the Porsche 911 Baureihe 991, arguing the 991 differs clearly from the Baureihe 997 (D1 and D2) in silhouette, reduced overhang, wider rear, LED tail lights, spoiler design and other features perceptible to the informed user; design awards support individual character.
- ›AUTEC AG (applicant) responded that the Porsche 911 appearance is marketed as deliberately consistent across generations, differences are millimetre-level changes of interest only to enthusiasts, and design awards reflect expert criteria irrelevant to the informed user.
- ›The Board found the designs' side views (body shape, doors, windows, headlamps) virtually identical; differences in tail lights, bumpers, mirror positioning and exhaust pipe shape are minor styling evolutions that do not alter the overall impression on the general car-using informed user.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; D1 alone defeats 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 |