Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-08-14
R2346/2023-3
Contested design: 008005813-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs for the invalidity and appeal proceedings fixed at EUR 900.
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, which are fixed at the amount of EUR 900.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €900
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Ningbo Vasa Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Floor 2, Bld 4,Maojiacao Industrial Area, Qianzhou Shounan Sub-District, Yinzhou, Ningbo, China
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
ELECTRONIC CONTROLS COMPANYvia PDF extraction
United States (US)
833 - W. Diamond, Boise 83705, United States
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
alarm lights
Community design No 6 964 193-0001 · DESIGNview / Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2019-10-14
warning light called 'mpower Fascia'
YouTube video entitled 'mpower Fascia Installation Espanol' · YouTube · disclosed 2016-09-27
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing the contested warning light lacked individual character over D1 and D2 and that flexible grooves were purely technical and should be discounted.
- ›The design holder sought dismissal, challenged the late-filed annexes, and argued the informed user is attentive, designer freedom is not restricted, and the cited designs differ materially.
- ›The Board admitted Annexes D3 and D5 only as supplements, refused to consider new prior designs in D4 and D6, and held D1 and D2 remained the only relevant earlier designs.
- ›Comparing the contested design with D1 and D2, the Board found visible differences in shape, sections, curvature, and emitters sufficient to preserve individual character, so the appeal failed.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2274/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2273/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1575/2025-3 | 2026-04-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1394/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1318/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1396/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |