Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-01-19
R1496/2015-3
Contested design: 001783655-0002
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled, the invalidity application is rejected in full, and the invalidity applicant bears the holder's costs of both proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1. La decisione impugnata è annullata; 2. La domanda di declaratoria di nullità è respinta; 3. La richiedente la nullità dovrà sopportare le spese sostenute dalla titolare.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
PIAGGIO & C. S.P.A.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Viale Rinaldo Piaggio, 25, 56025 Pontedera (PI), Italia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry Co. Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Industrial Zone Middle, Xinqiao, Luqiao District Taizhou City, 318050 Zhejiang Province, Repubblica Popolare Cinese
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Piaggio Vespa LX scooter — disclosed in 'Motociclismo' May 2005, 'In sella' April 2005 and 'City-X' June 2009
Riviste specializzate italiane: Motociclismo, In sella, City-X · disclosed 2005-04-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Piaggio sought invalidity of the contested scooter RCD (Zhongneng, resembling a 'Revival' scooter) on three grounds: lack of individual character over the Vespa LX; use of the Vespa LX as an unregistered 3D trade mark under Italian law; and infringement of copyright in the Vespa LX under Italian and French law.
- ›Zhongneng (holder) argued the scooter sector is crowded limiting creative freedom, the informed user is an enthusiast who notices angular vs. rounded line differences, no unregistered trade mark was proven, and the DMC does not reproduce the Vespa's distinctive shape elements.
- ›The Board found that the DMC (angular lines, geometric shapes) and the Vespa LX (rounded, feminine, vintage lines) produce distinctly different overall impressions; the market-crowding argument goes to sensitivity of the informed user, not to designer freedom; demoscopic evidence showed the Vespa LX unregistered mark has acquired distinctiveness in Italy, but no likelihood of confusion exists between the two scooters.
- ›All three invalidity grounds rejected; contested decision annulled; invalidity application dismissed; Piaggio bears costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(e) | — | 8 |
| R1663/2020-3 | 2022-08-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(e) | — | 8 |
| R1689/2021-3 | 2022-08-31 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | — | 6 |
| R1688/2021-3 | 2022-08-31 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | — | 6 |
| R1622/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f) | — | 6 |
| R1553/2019-3 | 2020-05-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | — | 6 |
| R1142/2018-3 | 2019-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f) | — | 6 |
| R1784/2022-3 | 2024-08-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |