Invalidity · first instance · 2021-01-28
000107279
Contested design: 000954482-0003
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity of Registered Community design No 000954482-0003 is rejected, and the applicant is ordered to bear 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.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Quarto Negroni 61, 00040 Ariccia, Italia
Represented by
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 (8)
dispositivo indicador luminoso para vehículos
ES 1 045 534 U · Spanish utility model register · disclosed 2000-09-01
puente de señalización prioritaria
ES 1 068 039 U · Spanish utility model register · disclosed 2008-08-01
dispositivos luminosos de vehículos
RCD No 000489109-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2006-04-11
puentes luminosos para vehículos
RCD No 000130281-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2004-05-18
Whelen automotive lightbar installation guide
WHEELEN ENGINEERING COMPANY INC.
HELLA catalog extract describing recognition lights
HELLA
Carabinieri Alfa 156 light bar
www.mitoalfaromeo.com, Wikipedia, FCA article, Corrado Alota declaration
Haztec Signal Alert light bar
Signal Alert · Haztec and ISAE declarations with invoices, price list and order confirmation
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity under Articles 25(1)(b), 4, 5, 6 and 8(1), arguing the central foldable panel was purely functional and that earlier designs D3-D8 destroyed novelty and individual character.
- ›The holder argued this was a second nullity action, denied bad faith relevance, disputed disclosure of some evidence, and maintained the contested design differed in overall form, proportions and visible features.
- ›The Division held D3, D4, D5, D7 and D8 sufficiently disclosed, but found the applicant had not proved the design's essential features were exclusively technically dictated under Article 8(1).
- ›It also found none of the cited designs was identical and that the contested design created a different overall impression on the informed user, so novelty and individual character were preserved.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberÁlvaro SESMA MERINO
- MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000128736 vs Senjia (Dongguan)Electronic Technology Co., LTD | 2025-07-11 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000125015 vs Honglan YIN | 2025-02-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000124516 vs YUYAO HILITE ELECTRIC CO.,LTD | 2024-12-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000121836 vs AMV Technology s.r.o. | 2024-07-12 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000121816 vs AMV Technology s.r.o. | 2024-07-12 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000121120 vs DELTA LIGHT NV | 2024-06-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000121119 vs DELTA LIGHT NV | 2024-06-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |
| 000120900 vs DELTA LIGHT NV | 2024-06-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 26 | 7 |