Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-09-18
R0151/2017-3
Contested design: 003113489-0003
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder shall reimburse the total sum of EUR 1,250 to the invalidity applicant.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
2. Il ricorso è respinto; 3. La titolare rifonderà la somma totale di 1.250 EUR alla richiedente la nullità.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €1,250
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Mad Max Co Italia S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via degli Olmetti, 44, 00060 Formello (Roma), Italia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
DEFENCE SYSTEM S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Don Lorenzo Milani, 19, 41122 Modena, Italia
Represented by
Luca Gianelli
Prior art cited (11)
spray bottle/personal defence spray device
www.flickr.com · flickr.com · disclosed 2011-03-27
spray device model
informareonline.com · informareonline.com · disclosed 2012-12-05
RSG 6 spray device
Security Katalog, November 2013 · Security Katalog · disclosed 2013-11-01
RSG-4 spray device
www.tw1000.com · tw1000.com · disclosed 2014-01-01
RSG-6 spray device
www.tw1000.com · tw1000.com · disclosed 2014-01-01
personal defence spray device
EP2 314 979 · European Patent Office · disclosed 2011-04-27
spray device
DE20 2009 018 089 · Germany · disclosed 2011-03-10
spray device
DE20 2006 008 367 · Germany · disclosed 2006-08-31
spray device
DE20 2006 004 268 · Germany · disclosed 2006-06-14
spray device
DE20 007 784 U1 · Germany · disclosed 2011-10-18
RSG-6 spray device
Defence System S.r.l. catalogue · Defence System S.r.l.
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Holder (appellant) argued that the informed user is highly trained law-enforcement personnel capable of perceiving minor differences, that design freedom was constrained by Italian Ministry of Interior specifications, and that differences in the spring clip, button knurling and device head distinguish the RCD from D7.
- ›Invalidity applicant (respondent) argued the RCD lacked novelty and/or individual character being nearly identical to D7 and other prior designs, and that the spring and head differences do not alter the overall impression.
- ›The Board confirmed that D7 (European patent EP2 314 979, published 27 April 2011) was properly disclosed under Article 7 CDR; the holder's design freedom argument based on a Ministry procurement specification was rejected as that document is contractual, not regulatory.
- ›The Board found the RCD's overall appearance is almost identical to D7: same cylindrical grip body with four-finger recesses and wider head with thumb-actuated button; the three alleged differences (spring anchor position, button knurling, head shape) are minor and do not dispel the déjà-vu impression.
- ›Appeal dismissed; holder to reimburse EUR 1,250 (EUR 750 invalidity + EUR 500 appeal proceedings).
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberG. Humphreys
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |