Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-09-27
R0152/2017-3
Contested design: 003113489-0002
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)
1. Il ricorso è respinto; 2. 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 Ministry of Interior specifications, and that differences in the spring clip shape and absence of button knurling distinguish the RCD (No 3 113 489-0002) 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 D7 (EP2 314 979, published 27 April 2011) was properly disclosed; the Ministry procurement specification argument was rejected as contractual, not regulatory, in line with the parallel R 151/2017-3 decision.
- ›The Board found the RCD's appearance almost identical to D7: same cylindrical grip body with four-finger recesses and wider head; the two alleged differences (spring shape and button knurling) are minor accessory elements that do not dispel the déjà-vu impression.
- ›Appeal dismissed; holder to reimburse EUR 1,250 (EUR 750 invalidity + EUR 500 appeal).
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberG. Humphreys
- RegistrarI. Romero Conrad
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 ↗ |