Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-09-10
R1142/2018-3
Contested design: 002565820-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to reimburse the total sum of EUR 900 to the design holder.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1. Il ricorso è respinto. 2. La richiedente la nullità rifonderà la somma totale di 900 EUR alla titolare.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €900
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
SOCIETE DES AUTOMOBILES ALPINE ou SAAvia PDF extraction
France (FR)
40 avenue de Bréauté, 76200 Dieppe, Francia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Filippo Gemellivia PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Tiziano, 17, 10100 Torino, Italia
Represented by
Gianluca Morretta
Prior art cited (3)
French automotive magazine page from 1967 Paris Motor Show depicting the Alpine A110 vehicle in yellow
French automotive magazine, 1967 · disclosed 1967-01-01
Type approval certificate (scheda di omologazione) dated 1968 issued by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile showing the Alpine A110
Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile · disclosed 1968-06-01
Alpine A110 exhibited at the Paris Motor Show in 1967 (blue vehicle, unattributed photograph)
disclosed 1967-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (Société des Automobiles Alpine) appealed the rejection of its invalidity application against RCD No 2 565 820-0001 (automobiles/Gemelli design), arguing the Gemelli design constitutes unauthorised use of the copyright-protected Alpine A110 under Article 25(1)(f) CDR and lacks novelty and individual character versus the Alpine A110 under Article 25(1)(b) CDR.
- ›The design holder (Filippo Gemelli) did not file observations at the appeal stage; at first instance he argued the Alpine lacks protectable originality, the designs differ fundamentally, and the relevant comparison is with the registered design, not the Willys prototype.
- ›The Board found the Article 25(1)(f) ground failed because the reproductions of the Alpine in the invalidity application were of insufficient quality and completeness to establish the allegedly original features; even assuming adequate reproduction, the Alpine's characteristics cannot be found in the Gemelli design. On Article 25(1)(b), the Board found that while disclosure is established via Doc. 2.1 and 2.3, the overall impressions differ markedly: the Alpine evokes a vintage 1960s sports car while the Gemelli produces the impression of a contemporary high-performance vehicle.
- ›The appeal is dismissed; the applicant is ordered to pay EUR 900 to the holder (EUR 400 for first-instance costs as already set, plus EUR 500 for appeal representation).
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberC. Negro
- 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 ↗ |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R0861/2023-3 | 2024-02-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0862/2023-3 | 2024-02-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1263/2021-3 | 2023-02-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1622/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f) | — | 7 |
| R1663/2020-3 | 2022-08-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f) | — | 7 |
| R2283/2019-3 | 2021-02-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2349/2019-3 | 2020-09-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |