Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-09-03
R1043/2018-3
Contested design: 000607155-0004
Outcome
The contested decision is set aside, the invalidity application is rejected, and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die angefochtene Entscheidung wird aufgehoben. 2. Der Nichtigkeitsantrag wird zurückgewiesen. 3. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Asian Gear B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
De Lasso 42, 2371 GX Roelofarendsveen, Niederlande
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Multimox Holding B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Mariastraat 62, 5121JW Rijen, Niederlande
Represented by
Kai Kohlmann
Prior art cited (3)
Chinese design patent/certificate for a scooter
CN3568787 · SIPO design patent certificate and database extract · disclosed 2006-10-11
alleged website disclosure of a scooter corresponding to D1
www.cnsycn.com · archived company website
alleged marketing of scooters corresponding to D1 in China from 2004 and in the EU from 2005 based on approval documents and declarations
vehicle approvals and company declaration
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant relied on Chinese design patent D1, an alleged related website disclosure and alleged prior marketing of scooters, arguing that the contested scooter design lacked novelty and individual character.
- ›The design holder argued that disclosure of D1 to the relevant EU specialist circles had not been proven, that the cited material was poorly translated or unreliable, and that authorship and grace-period arguments would in any event prevent D1 from counting against the design.
- ›The Board found that the evidence did not prove D1 had been made available to the relevant circles in the EU before the filing date: an SIPO publication only eight days earlier, unclear website material and market-approval documents were all insufficient.
- ›The appeal succeeded; the Invalidity Division's decision was annulled and the invalidity application rejected.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberG. Humphreys
- Registrarp.o. M. Chaleva
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1213/2019-3 | 2020-11-19 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1042/2018-3 | 2020-09-03 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1399/2017-3 | 2019-07-10 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R2215/2016-3 | 2018-06-29 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R2216/2016-3 | 2018-06-29 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0732/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 4 |
| R1434/2024-3 | 2024-12-11 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 7(1) | — | 4 |
| R2336/2022-3 | 2023-11-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 4 |