Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-12-09
R0050/2017-3
Contested design: 002237495-0009
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled, the application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the invalidity applicant must reimburse the holder’s costs.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1. La decisione è annullata; 2. La domanda di dichiarazione di nullità è respinta; 3. La richiedente la nullità dovrà rifondere le spese alla titolare.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Ciar S.p.A.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Vincenzo Molaroni, 3, Frazione Borgo S. Maria, Pesaro, Italia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Motion S.p.A.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Biondini, 27, 47121 Forlì (FC), Italia
Represented by
Sandro Corona
Prior art cited (4)
movement device
Hickory Springs 5114 · catalogues and invoices
movement device
Hickory Springs 611E · catalogues and invoices
movement device
Ciar CF42 · catalogues and invoices
movement device
Ciar CF56 · catalogues and invoices
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested movement-device design for furniture components should be invalidated because it was a non-visible component of a complex product, was solely dictated by technical function, and in any event lacked novelty and individual character over models 5114, 611E, CF56 and CF42.
- ›The design holder argued that the visible articulated arms of the device are seen during normal use, that the design was not exclusively dictated by technical considerations, and that the cited earlier models created a different overall impression.
- ›The Board held that the contested design was at least partly visible in normal use, that Article 8(1) CDR did not apply, and that the validly disclosed earlier models did not deprive the contested design of individual character.
- ›The appeal was upheld: the invalidity decision was annulled and the invalidity application rejected.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- MemberS. Rizzo
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarE. Apaolaza
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1698/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 63(2) | — | 10 |
| R1694/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 63(2) | — | 10 |
| R1693/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 63(2) | — | 10 |
| R1696/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 63(2) | — | 10 |
| R1699/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 63(2) | — | 10 |
| R1654/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 63(2) | — | 10 |
| R1653/2021-3 | 2022-03-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 63(2) | — | 10 |
| R0051/2017-3 | 2021-12-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 63(2), Art 4(3) | — | 10 |