DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003110733-0007

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-04-03

000105539

Contested design: 003110733-0007

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against the contested RCD is rejected.

Show verbatim operative text(it)

1. La domanda di dichiarazione di nullità del disegno/modello comunitario registrato n. 003110733007 è respinta.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Federal Signal Vama S.A.U.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Dr. Ferrán 7, 08339 Vilassar de Dalt, Barcellona, Spagna

Represented by

Javier Ungría López

Holder · RCD owner

Intav S.r.l.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Quarto Negroni 61, 00040 Ariccia (RM), Italia

Prior art cited (2)

PublicationD01

warning light bar disclosed in the 'Fiat Bravo Carabinieri' automobile manual

'Fiat Bravo Carabinieri' manual · disclosed 2008-03-10

Prior useD02

photographs of a vehicle warning light bar

photographs · disclosed 2010-10-09

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(a)Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)Article 6(1)Article 7

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the registered design was internally inconsistent under Article 3(a) and, alternatively, lacked novelty and individual character over earlier warning light bar disclosures D01 and D02.
  • Holder replied that the views were coherent once the dotted-line exclusions were respected, that the field was crowded, and that the contested design remained new and individually distinctive.
  • The Division rejected the Article 25(1)(a) attack, holding the protected perimeter base, rectangular recess and rear inserts were sufficiently clear across the views.
  • It then found the earlier designs disclosed but not identical and concluded the contested design's straight rear side, concave front side and curved junctions created a different overall impression.
  • The application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
  • MemberJessica LEWIS

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianoriginalDownload 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
000119619

vs XAL GmbH

2026-04-15Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)267
000128736

vs Senjia (Dongguan)Electronic Technology Co., LTD

2025-07-11Art 25(1)(b)267
000125015

vs Honglan YIN

2025-02-10Art 25(1)(b)267
000124516

vs YUYAO HILITE ELECTRIC CO.,LTD

2024-12-19Art 25(1)(b)267
000121654

vs MARSET ILUMINACION, S.A.

2024-08-09OthersArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)267
000121836

vs AMV Technology s.r.o.

2024-07-12Art 25(1)(b)267
000121816

vs AMV Technology s.r.o.

2024-07-12Art 25(1)(b)267
000121120

vs DELTA LIGHT NV

2024-06-18Art 25(1)(b)267