Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-11-03
R0537/2021-3
Contested design: 000954482-0003
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the holder's costs.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Desestimar el recurso; 2. Ordenar que la solicitante de nulidad sufrague las costas de la titular.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
INTAV S.R.L.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Ariccia, Italia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
FEDERAL SIGNAL VAMA, S.A.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Barcelona, España
Represented by
Javier Ungría López
Prior art cited (6)
Utility model for a vehicle light indicator device
ES 1 045 534 U · Spanish utility model register · disclosed 2000-09-01
Utility model for a priority signalling light bridge
ES 1 068 039 U · Spanish utility model register · disclosed 2008-08-01
Vehicle lighting device
RCD No 489 109-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2006-04-11
Vehicle light bridge
RCD No 130 281-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2004-05-18
Folding message-light bar used on Carabinieri vehicles
Alfa Romeo 156 Carabinieri light bar · Web extracts and Carabinieri declaration · disclosed 1998-01-01
Earlier Haztec vehicle light bar
Haztec Signal Alert light bar · Declarations, invoices and price list
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the central folding panel of the vehicle light device was purely functional and that several earlier designs and prior-use disclosures destroyed novelty and individual character.
- ›The design holder replied that the cited earlier material either did not prove the alleged disclosures sufficiently or showed different specific configurations, and that the folding panel also had an aesthetic role.
- ›The Board agreed that the applicant had not shown the essential features to be exclusively dictated by technical function and found the contested design produced a different overall impression from the earlier vehicle-light designs relied on.
- ›The appeal was dismissed, so the Invalidity Division's rejection of the nullity application remained in force and costs were awarded against the invalidity applicant.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurM. Bra
- MemberS. Rizzo
- Registrarp.o. R. Vidal Romero
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0952/2021-3 | 2024-09-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2140/2023-3 | 2024-08-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2585/2023-3 | 2024-08-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1745/2023-3 | 2024-06-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |