Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-08-08
R1663/2020-3
Contested design: 004363588-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.
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), Italien
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
e-bility GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Dieselstraße 28, 53424 Remagen, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
3D scooter / Vespa shape mark for motor scooters and model scooters
Italian trade mark No 1556520 · Italian trade mark register / translated registration extract · disclosed 2013-09-17
two-wheeled vehicle design
Italian design No 83297 · Italian design registration / DesignView · disclosed 2001-10-04
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant attacked the scooter design for lack of novelty and individual character over earlier Italian rights and also relied on trade mark and copyright-based invalidity grounds.
- ›The design holder denied any relevant similarity, argued that scooter design freedom is limited by functional constraints, and rejected both the trade mark and copyright objections.
- ›The Board found a different overall impression, held that the trade mark ground was not properly substantiated under the relied-on law, and found that the protected copyright work had not been sufficiently identified.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the invalidity application remained rejected and the applicant had to bear the costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberC. Bartos
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(e) | — | 9 |
| R1496/2015-3 | 2018-01-19 | Decision annulled | 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) | — | 7 |
| R1688/2021-3 | 2022-08-31 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | — | 7 |
| R1622/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f) | — | 7 |
| R1553/2019-3 | 2020-05-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | — | 7 |
| R1142/2018-3 | 2019-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f) | — | 7 |
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |