DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005820008-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-06-25

R1434/2020-3

Contested design: 005820008-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings are borne by the holder.

Show verbatim operative text(it)

1. Il ricorso è respinto; 2. Le spese sostenute dalla richiedente nei procedimenti di nullità e di ricorso sono poste a carico della titolare.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Daimler AGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Mercedesstr. 120, 70372 Stoccarda, Germania

Holder · RCD owner

G.M.P. Group s.r.l.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Luigi Galvani, 8/12, 24061 Albano Sant'Alessandro (BG), Italia

Represented by

Giulio Bonadio

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

wheel rims for vehicles

RCD No 2 691 410-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-10-21

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6Article 7

Argument summary

  • The holder argued that the Invalidity Division had misjudged the crowded state of the wheel-rim sector, the informed user, and the effect of differences between the competing rims.
  • The invalidity applicant maintained that the earlier registered rim design disclosed the same dominant five paired spokes, V-shaped spacing and rib structure, and that the remaining differences were only technical details around the hub holes.
  • The Board found wide design freedom apart from basic circular constraints and held that the common paired-spoke and rib arrangement dominated the overall impression, while the cited differences were minimal and scarcely perceptible.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the holder was ordered to bear the invalidity applicant’s costs in both instances.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberM. Bra
  • RegistrarR. Vidal

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0303/2021-32022-07-12Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 6(1)(b), Art 6(2)8
R2322/2024-32025-05-21Decision confirmedArt 6(1)(b), Art 7(1), Art 70(1)6
R2422/2022-32024-01-30Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 6(1)(b)6
R0856/2022-32023-06-30Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 6(1)(b)6
R0055/2022-32022-10-07Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 6(1)(b)6
R2054/2021-32022-08-19Decision confirmedArt 6(1)(b), Art 6(2)6
R1338/2019-32020-03-30Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 6(2)6
R1577/2016-32018-06-01Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 6(1)(b)6