Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-07-05
R1301/2021-3
Contested design: 003058809-0001
Outcome
The appeal is upheld; the contested decision is annulled and the invalidity application is rejected; the invalidity applicant must bear the holder’s costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1. Il ricorso è accolto; 2. La decisione impugnata è annullata e la domanda di nullità è rigettata; 3. La richiedente la nullità deve sopportare le spese sostenute dalla titolare nei procedimenti di nullità e di ricorso.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
LYNX S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Viale Verdi, 56, 34074 Monfalcone (GO), Italia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Luminal Agency S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Cappuccini 16, 20122 Milano, Italia
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
“Laureato” wristwatch model
La Clessidra, “Marche di Orologi in Italia” · La Clessidra magazine · disclosed 1995-12-01
multiple “Royal Oak” wristwatch disclosures discussed collectively in marks, brochures, and magazines
publications and brochures cited in the decision
“Odysée” wristwatch model
publication cited in the decision
Bulgari “Octo Steel” wristwatch
giltmagazine.it/lifestyle/arte-e-design/un-ottagono-segna-le-ore-di-bulgari/ · giltmagazine.it
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The holder argued that in octagonal-bezel wristwatches the informed user focuses on distinctive bezel angles, grooved hands, and the tapered case rather than on common sector features.
- ›The invalidity applicant contended that the contested watch reproduced the same overall impression as earlier watches, especially the Laureato, and that the cited differences were minor.
- ›The Board accepted disclosure of the earlier materials but held that common watch-sector features such as an octagonal bezel and circular crystal carried less weight because they were widespread.
- ›It found the visible differences in bezel edges, case structure, and other aesthetic details sufficient to create different overall impressions, so the invalidity application had to be rejected.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurM. Bra
- 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 ↗ |