Invalidity · first instance · 2019-05-23
000102780
Contested design: 003293505-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 003293505-0001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Bike Spa E-Roadvia PDF extraction
France (FR)
37 Rue des Mathurins, Paris 75008, France
Represented by
Claire de Chassey
Holder · RCD owner
E-Link Technology Co, Ltd
China (CN)
1st Block, Shi’ao 2nd Industrial Park, Langjing Road, Dalang Street, Longhuatown, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (6)
self-balancing scooter
RCD No 002597443-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-01-02
self-balancing scooter
RCD No 002597443-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-01-02
self-balancing scooter
RCD No 002905604-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-12-23
self-balancing scooter
RCD No 002905604-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-12-23
self-balancing scooter
RCD No 002905604-0004 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-12-23
self-balancing vehicle
US patent application No 2013/0238231 · US Patent and Trademark Office bulletin · disclosed 2013-09-12
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over five earlier RCDs and one US patent publication for self-balancing scooters.
- ›The holder argued the contested design remained novel and individual, stressing technical constraints on self-balancing vehicles and identifying visual differences from each prior design.
- ›The Division accepted all cited prior designs as disclosed but found the designer's freedom was only partly limited and that differences in shape, fenders, tyre patterns, wheel interiors, and decoration were clearly visible.
- ›The contested RCD created a different overall impression on the informed user, so the claims under Articles 6 and 5 failed and the invalidity application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| 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 ↗ |
Locarno classes
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000113981 vs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd | 2022-04-08 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000104359 vs Lohia e-mobility GmbH | 2020-06-23 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000107759 vs A & F S.r.l. | 2020-06-10 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000107760 vs A & F S.r.l. | 2020-06-04 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000103799 vs LT Fördertechnik | 2019-11-04 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000102599 vs Tecnimoem Care, S.L. | 2019-10-10 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000103619 vs Airwheel Europe S. A. | 2019-09-17 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000011186 vs LA MARE Spółka z o.o. | 2019-08-05 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |