DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004720290-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-08-09

000102399

Contested design: 004720290-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 004720290-0001 is rejected.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Federal Signal Vama S.A.

Spain (ES)

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

Represented by

Javier Ungría López

Holder · RCD owner

Intav S.R.L.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Quarto Negroni, 61, 00072 Ariccia (Roma), Italy

Prior art cited (6)

Registered RCD

signalling lights for vehicles

RCD No 000954482-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2008-07-04

Registered RCD

luminous emergency device for vehicles

RCD 00884036-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin

Registered RCD

luminous emergency device for vehicles

RCD 0093291-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin

Registered RCD

luminous emergency device for vehicles

RCD 001619248-0008 · Community Designs Bulletin

Registered RCD

luminous emergency device for vehicles

RCD 002754887-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin

Catalog

signalling light bar for vehicles

Hella RTK-QS Manual Instructions · Hella · disclosed 2008-06-05

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over earlier RCD No 000954482-0003 and other prior disclosures in signalling lights for vehicles.
  • The holder argued the contested design was new and individually distinctive, citing a broader prior corpus and differences in the panel, frame, proportions, and fixing mechanism.
  • The Invalidity Division accepted disclosure of the earlier RCD, but found the contested design was not identical and produced a different overall impression on the informed user.
  • The invalidity application was rejected because the contested RCD retained novelty and individual character; the applicant was ordered to pay fixed costs of EUR 400.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload 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
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
000011220

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

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