DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000954482-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-02-20

000010509

Contested design: 000954482-0003

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant is ordered to pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Se deniega la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado nº 000954482-0003. 2. Se condena al solicitante a que sufrague las costas del titular, fijadas en 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

INTAV S.r.l.

Italy (IT)

Via Quarto Negroni 61, 00040 Ariccia RM, Italia

Represented by

BARZANÓ & ZANARDO

Andrea Perronace

Holder · RCD owner

Federal Signal Vama S.A.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Dr. Ferrán 7, 08339 Vilassar de Dalt (Barcelona), España

Represented by

Javier Ungría López

Prior art cited (6)

Utility modelD1

vehicle light indicator device

ES 1 045 534 U · Spanish Patent and Trademark Office register · disclosed 2000-09-01

Utility modelD2

priority signalling bridge

ES 1 068 039 U · Spanish Patent and Trademark Office register · disclosed 2008-08-01

Registered RCDD3

vehicle lighting devices

000489109-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2006-04-11

Registered RCDD4

vehicle light bars

000130281-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2004-05-18

PublicationD5⚠ rejected as evidence

undated guide showing installation of automotive light bars

WHEELEN ENGINEERING COMPANY INC.

CatalogD6⚠ rejected as evidence

undated extract describing recognition lights

HELLA

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested vehicle light design lacked novelty and individual character over D3 and D4, and that key features were dictated solely by technical function in light of D1 and D2.
  • The holder replied that the design had novelty and individual character when assessed as a whole and that the WHEELEN material could not prove disclosure.
  • The Division accepted D1 to D4 as disclosed prior art but rejected D5 and D6 as undated evidence that could not establish publication.
  • The Division found the applicant had not proved that the essential features were exclusively functional, and the contested design created a different overall impression from D3 and D4.
  • The invalidity application was rejected in full and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder's costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER
  • MemberÁlvaro SESMA MERINO

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esSpanishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

26.06

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000106699

vs Shenzhen Juku Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.

2020-05-19Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000104419

vs Lukas Staffen

2019-11-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000102399

vs INTAV S.R.L.

2019-08-09Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000101440

vs KARE Design GmbH

2019-07-09Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000104899

vs Daxtor ApS

2019-05-22Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000103059

vs ZHEJIANG CHINA-BEST IMPORT & EXPORT CO.,LTD

2019-05-20Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000102099

vs LIQUIDLEDS LIGHTING CORP

2019-03-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000011221

vs HANGZHOU CHENGYUE ELECTRON& ELECTRIC CO.., LTD.

2019-02-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268