DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003110733-0006

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-08-12

000107799

Contested design: 003110733-0006

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(it)

1. La domanda di dichiarazione di nullità del disegno/modello comunitario registrato n. 0031107330006 è respinta. 2. La richiedente sopporta l’onere delle spese sostenute dalla titolare, fissate a 400 EUR.

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

'Fiat Bravo Carabinieri' automobile manual disclosing the earlier vehicle signalling light design

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

Prior useD02

Photographs of the earlier vehicle signalling light design

Photographs · disclosed 2010-10-09

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 25(1)(b)Article 3Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested RCD was incoherent across its views and therefore did not qualify as a design, and alternatively lacked novelty and individual character over D01 and D02.
  • The holder replied that the views were consistent, colour differences merely clarified excluded features, and the contested light bar had distinct shape details that made it new and individually characterful.
  • The Division found the representations sufficiently coherent and clear, so the Article 25(1)(a) ground failed.
  • It accepted D01 and D02 as prior disclosures but held that the protected perimeter base and rear inserts created a different overall impression on the informed user, so novelty and individual character were preserved.
  • The invalidity application was rejected in full and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

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
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
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
000121119

vs DELTA LIGHT NV

2024-06-13Art 25(1)(b)267
000120900

vs DELTA LIGHT NV

2024-06-10Art 25(1)(b)267