Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-08-14
R2347/2023-3
Contested design: 008005813-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's fixed costs of EUR 900 for 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, 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 'mpower Fascia Installation Espanol' · YouTube · disclosed 2016-09-27
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing lack of individual character over D1 and D2, broader designer freedom, and that technical grooves should be discounted.
- ›The design holder sought dismissal, challenged the late-filed material, and argued the informed user would notice the relevant differences in this type of vehicle warning light.
- ›The Board admitted Annexes D3 and D5 only as supplementary evidence, refused to expand the case with new prior designs in Annexes D4 and D6, and assessed the appeal on D1 and D2 alone.
- ›It found D1 created a different overall impression, D2 was too unclear for a closer comparison, confirmed individual character, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
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 |