Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-11-03
R1101/2020-3
Contested design: 003110733-0007
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1. Il ricorso è respinto; 2. La richiedente deve sostenere le spese in cui è incorsa la titolare nei procedimenti di nullità e di ricorso.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
FEDERAL SIGNAL VAMA, S.A.U.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Barcelona, Spagna
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
INTAV S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Ariccia, Italia
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
Front model of a vehicle signal light shown in the printed Fiat Bravo Carabinieri manual
Fiat Bravo Carabinieri manual · Printed manual · disclosed 2008-03-10
Photographs of an earlier vehicle signal light model
Photographs · disclosed 2010-10-09
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested RCD's views were inconsistent so the design did not satisfy the definition of a design, and in the alternative that earlier disclosed vehicle signal-light models destroyed novelty and individual character.
- ›The design holder replied that the dashed-line exclusions made the represented features coherent, that the applicant was invoking an inapposite nullity theory, and that the earlier designs still produced a different overall impression.
- ›The Board agreed that the contested registration still represented a protectable design under Article 3(a) CDR and found that the prior manual and photograph evidence did not show an earlier design creating the same overall impression.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear the holder's costs in both instances.
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 ↗ |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2028/2023-3 | 2024-04-15 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R0573/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R0574/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R1956/2020-3 | 2022-11-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R1800/2021-3 | 2022-09-05 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R2060/2019-3 | 2022-02-01 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R1140/2019-3 | 2020-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R0026/2019-3 | 2020-02-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |