Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-06-02
R1306/2019-3
Contested design: 004048429-0001
Outcome
1. The contested Invalidity Division decision is annulled and the invalidity application is rejected. 2. The invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the costs and fees incurred by the design holder.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision and rejects the application for invalidity; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs and fees incurred by the design holder.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
NINO ROBOTICSvia PDF extraction
France (FR)
18 avenue de Montpellier, 34800 Clermont-l'Herault, France
Represented by
Marie Sonnier-Poquillon
Holder · RCD owner
CHANGZHOU AIRWHEEL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Room 501-4, 9-1 Taihu Rd. E, Xinbei District, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213022, People's Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Self-balanced personal transporter (wheelchair)
DM/085 317 · WIPO Global Design Database; priority from French design No 20 142 584-001 of 17 June 2014 · disclosed 2015-06-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder (appellant) argued that the contested RCD (wheelchair) possesses individual character: the conflicting designs differ significantly in dominant features including the joystick controller vs. handlebar, shape and positioning of armrests, wheel rim spoke count and centre caps, and seat cushion inclination; the Invalidity Division erred by focusing on shared structural wheelchair components rather than the visually prominent differences.
- ›The invalidity applicant (respondent) maintained that all characteristics of the contested RCD are present in the prior design (international design DM/085 317), that the shared features — overall shape, seat/backrest, footrest, mudguards, stand mechanism, and all-terrain wheels — are the distinctive elements, and that differences (joystick, armrests, spokes) are either technically functional or minor details that would not affect the overall impression.
- ›The Board found significant differences between the two wheelchair designs — in particular the joystick controller vs. centrally-placed control arm, forward vs. backward-facing armrests with different cut-outs, five vs. three wheel spokes with different centre caps, and flat vs. inwardly curved seat — that are sufficiently pronounced to produce different overall impressions on an informed user with a high degree of attention.
- ›The appeal was upheld, the Invalidity Division decision was annulled, and the invalidity application was rejected; the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear all costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurA. Szanyi Felkl
- MemberC. Bartos
- RegistrarR. Vidal
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1784/2022-3 | 2024-08-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1936/2023-3 | 2024-04-09 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2238/2022-3 | 2024-01-15 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0605/2021-3 | 2022-12-13 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1223/2021-3 | 2022-11-23 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1221/2021-3 | 2022-11-23 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1220/2021-3 | 2022-06-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1222/2021-3 | 2022-06-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |