Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-06-18
R0823/2024-3
Contested design: 008320014-0004
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 bears its own costs of 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 2005 bticino catalog
HC4140/16W · bticino, Valore superiore su tutta la linea
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant challenged the contested EU design for lack of novelty and individual character, relying in particular on a 2005 bticino catalog socket and arguing that core socket features were technically constrained.
- ›The holder-appellant argued that the Invalidity Division ignored the perspective view and underestimated visible differences in the recess geometry, depth, and the diagonal rectangular USB-type element.
- ›The respondent maintained that informed users see the receptacle and USB-type shapes as standardized or technically driven, so any dimensional differences would not alter the overall impression.
- ›The Board admitted supplementary appeal evidence, found author freedom limited mainly to external element placement and related details, and held that those differences created a different overall impression, so it annulled and remitted.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0577/2025-3 | 2026-01-21 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 60(1) | — | 7 |
| R0010/2024-3 | 2024-10-02 | 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 |
| R1546/2018-3 | 2019-01-22 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b), Art 60(1) | — | 7 |
| R1826/2025-3 | 2026-04-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R0333/2025-3 | 2026-01-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 6 |