DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004720290-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-07-24

R2234/2019-3

Contested design: 004720290-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

FEDERAL SIGNAL VAMA, S.A.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Dr. Ferrán, 7, E-08339 Vilassar de Dalt (Barcelona), SPAIN

Represented by

Ungría López

Holder · RCD owner

INTAV S.R.L.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Quarto Negroni, 61, I-I-00072 Ariccia (RM), ITALY

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCD

signalling lights for vehicles

RCD No 000954482-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2008-07-04

Catalog

signalling light bar for vehicles

Hella RTK-QS Manual Instructions · Hella · disclosed 2008-06-05

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)Article 5(1)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued the contested signalling-light design lacked novelty and individual character over earlier RCD No 000954482-0003 and supporting sector disclosures.
  • The design holder said the sector was crowded, many similar light bars pre-existed, and the informed user would notice the contested design's differentiating features.
  • The Board accepted disclosure of the earlier design but found the informed user, despite some technical constraints, would perceive the contested RCD's differing overall impression.
  • Because the contested RCD retained individual character and therefore novelty, the invalidity application remained unfounded and the appeal was dismissed.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurM. Bra
  • MemberS. Rizzo
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deGermanhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0116/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0115/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1669/2023-32024-11-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2453/2023-32024-10-30Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0952/2021-32024-09-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2140/2023-32024-08-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2585/2023-32024-08-06Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1745/2023-32024-06-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5