Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-08-05
R2575/2019-3
Contested design: 004370914-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the design holder's costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the fees and costs 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
Holder · RCD owner
Airwheel Europe S. A.via PDF extraction
Belgium (BE)
Rue Laid Burnait 3, 1348 Louvain-1a-Neuve, Belgium
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
self-balanced personal transporter (wheelchair)
DM/085 317 · WIPO Global Design Database / International Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-06-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Invalidity applicant/appellant (Nino Robotics) argued the contested RCD (wheelchair/self-balanced personal transporter) lacked novelty and individual character versus prior International Design Registration DM/085 317, claiming the designs share all key distinguishing features (seat, armrests, all-terrain wheels, footrest) and differences are immaterial; it also relied on a Düsseldorf court judgment finding infringement of the prior design.
- ›Design holder argued the contested RCD was new and possessed individual character, noting material differences in steering (joystick vs. control arm), armrests, footrest, wheels, stand mechanism, and seat; submitted evidence of prior designs pre-dating DM/085 317 to show its features were not unique.
- ›The Board found significant visible differences between the designs — particularly in footrest shape, steering mechanism (joystick vs. handlebar), armrests, stand mechanism, wheel spokes and tyre width, and seat inclination — which the informed user (disabled person or caregiver) would readily notice given a high degree of attention.
- ›Appeal dismissed; the contested decision correctly rejected the invalidity application; the RCD is novel and possesses individual character.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurA. Szanyi Felkl
- MemberC. Bartos
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| itItalian | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0952/2021-3 | 2024-09-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2140/2023-3 | 2024-08-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2585/2023-3 | 2024-08-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1745/2023-3 | 2024-06-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |