Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-03-25
R1275/2017-3
Contested design: 000169370-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the contested RCD is declared invalid; the holder is ordered to bear the applicant's costs in both invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1. Il ricorso è respinto; 2. Il DMC contestato è dichiarato nullo; 3. Le spese sostenute dalla richiedente nei procedimenti di nullità e di ricorso sono a carico della titolare.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
ANTRAX IT S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Boscalto, 40, 31023 Resana (TV), Italia
Represented by
Paolo Piovesana
Holder · RCD owner
TUBES RADIATORI S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Boscalto, 32, 31023 Resana (TV), Italia
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
heating radiator with vertical rectangular-section heating tubes and horizontal collectors
DM/060 899 · WIPO international design registration · disclosed 2002-09-30
heating radiator with vertical tubes
German design registration No 40 110 481.8 (multiple) · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder (appellant) argued that the reference sector for heating radiators was heavily saturated, constraining designer freedom and making the informed user more sensitive to small differences such as tube cross-section (square vs. rectangular) and spacing, which distinguish the contested RCD from the prior design.
- ›The invalidity applicant (respondent) contended the submitted evidence failed to prove saturation — it covered only two producers — and that high designer freedom meant minor differences could not produce a different overall impression.
- ›The Board found the holder's evidence (a few catalogue extracts from only two manufacturers) insufficient to establish saturation; confirmed designer freedom was high; and concluded the common features — elongated rectangular form, vertical quadrangular-section tubes, horizontal collectors — dominated the overall impression with no significant difference.
- ›The appeal was dismissed, confirming the invalidity division's finding and ordering the holder to bear costs. This case had a lengthy procedural history involving two prior remittals from the General Court.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- MemberC. Negro
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarR. Vidal
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2471/2023-3 | 2024-08-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2422/2022-3 | 2024-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2206/2021-3 | 2022-12-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0133/2022-3 | 2022-12-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0055/2022-3 | 2022-10-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2054/2021-3 | 2022-08-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2028/2021-3 | 2022-07-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0303/2021-3 | 2022-07-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |