Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-12-09
R0051/2017-3
Contested design: 001950676-0008
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder must bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1. Il ricorso è respinto; 2. La titolare dovrà sopportare le spese sostenute dalla richiedente la nullità.
CostsHolder 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 (1)
headrest movement mechanism
IPEA – meccanismi per l’imbottito, modello 'MICHIGAN' · IPEA furniture-mechanisms catalog (dated 2006)
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued that the contested movement device was not a hidden component excluded by Article 4(2) CDR, was not solely dictated by technical function, and differed from the earlier mechanisms relied on by the invalidity applicant.
- ›The invalidity applicant maintained that the movement device was an internal mechanism of a complex product, invisible in normal use, technically driven, and lacking individual character over earlier catalogued mechanisms including the 'MICHIGAN' model.
- ›The Board held that the mechanism was not excluded from protection under Article 4(2) CDR and that Article 8 CDR did not invalidate it, because visual choices remained and the device could be seen in certain normal situations of use.
- ›It nevertheless found that the earlier 'MICHIGAN' mechanism was validly disclosed and produced the same overall impression on the informed user, so the appeal was dismissed and the invalidity stood.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- MemberC. Negro
- MemberS. Rizzo
- Registrarp.o. E. Apaolaza
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0050/2017-3 | 2021-12-09 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 63(2), Art 4(3) | — | 10 |
| R1698/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R1694/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R1693/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R1699/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R1654/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R1696/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R1653/2021-3 | 2022-03-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |