Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-09-27
R0153/2017-3
Contested design: 003113489-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the 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)
Modello pubblicato il 27 marzo 2011 sul sito www.flickr.com
www.flickr.com · disclosed 2011-03-27
Modello pubblicato il 5 dicembre 2012 sul sito informareonline.com
informareonline.com · disclosed 2012-12-05
Modello RSG 6 pubblicato nel catalogo Security Katalog datato novembre 2013
Security Katalog · disclosed 2013-11-01
Modello RSG-4 pubblicato nel 2014 sul sito www.tw1000.com
www.tw1000.com · disclosed 2014-01-01
Modello RSG-6 pubblicato nel 2014 sul sito www.tw1000.com
www.tw1000.com · disclosed 2014-01-01
Brevetto europeo relativo a dispositivo spray di autodifesa
EP2 314 979 · European Patent Office · disclosed 2011-04-27
Modello brevettato tedesco
DE20 2009 018 089 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 2011-03-10
Modello brevettato tedesco
DE20 2006 008 367 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 2006-08-31
Modello brevettato tedesco
DE20 2006 004 268 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 2006-06-14
Modello brevettato tedesco
DE20 007 784 U1 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 2011-10-18
Modello RSG-6 pubblicato nel catalogo della ditta Defence System S.r.l.
Defence System S.r.l.
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Holder (DEFENCE SYSTEM) appealed the Invalidity Division's declaration of invalidity of RCD 3 113 489-0001 (spray defence device), arguing that the informed user is a highly discerning law-enforcement professional, that designer freedom was severely limited by Italian Ministry of Interior technical specifications, and that differences in the clip spring shape and button knurling suffice to produce a different overall impression from D7.
- ›Invalidity applicant (Mad Max) argued that the design lacks novelty and/or individual character, being nearly identical to prior art D2–D12, and that the spring differences do not alter the overall impression.
- ›The Board held that the designer's freedom was not constrained by contractual procurement specifications (which are not normative), that freedom was in fact broad as the product can take many forms, and that the identified differences (spring shape, button knurling, head form quality) are minor and do not dispel the déjà-vu impression produced by the contested design relative to D7.
- ›The Board confirmed the Invalidity Division's decision: the RCD lacks individual character under Article 6 CDR and is declared invalid; the appeal is dismissed.
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 ↗ |