Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-10-02
R0010/2024-3
Contested design: 008320014-0005
Outcome
The appeal is upheld, the contested decision is annulled, the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division for further examination of the invalidity application, and each party shall bear its own costs in the appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
Il ricorso è accolto; La decisione impugnata è annullata; Il fascicolo è trasmesso alla Divisione di Annullamento per ulteriore esame della domanda di dichiarazione di nullità; Ciascuna parte sopporterà le proprie spese sostenute nel procedimento di ricorso.
CostsEach party bears its own costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Vimar S.p.A.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Viale Vicenza, 14, 36063 Marostica (VI), Italia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
4 Box S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Brunelleschi, 16, 20146 Milano, Italia
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
electrical socket shown in the third-party catalog "bticino, Valore superiore su tutta la linea"
HC4140/16W · bticino catalog "Valore superiore su tutta la linea" · disclosed 2005-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The holder appealed, arguing that the Invalidity Division overlooked visible differences between the contested socket design and the earlier design, especially the rectangular cut-outs and the corner element, so the contested design retained individual character.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that the relevant socket and USB-C shapes were largely dictated by technical standards and that any dimensional or positional differences were too minor to alter the informed user's overall impression.
- ›The Board accepted additional appeal-stage evidence, confirmed disclosure of the 2005 bticino catalog design, and assessed individual character from the perspective of an informed user familiar with standardized electrical sockets.
- ›The Board found the differences in the position, arrangement, and shape of the external rectangular element sufficient to create a different overall impression, annulled the decision, and remitted the case for examination of the other earlier designs invoked.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | human 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0577/2025-3 | 2026-01-21 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 60(1) | — | 7 |
| R0823/2024-3 | 2025-06-18 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 60(1) | — | 7 |
| R0422/2023-3 | 2024-03-19 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 60(1) | — | 7 |
| R0353/2022-3 | 2023-03-10 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 60(1) | — | 7 |
| R1866/2021-3 | 2022-09-16 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 60(1) | — | 7 |
| R1804/2024-3 | 2025-11-19 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0922/2024-3 | 2025-07-08 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0370/2022-3 | 2025-03-13 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |