DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004168102-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-06-26

000103462

Contested design: 004168102-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against Registered Community design No 004168102-0002 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the costs incurred by the holder.

Show verbatim operative text(fr)

1. La demande en nullité à l'encontre du dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré nº 004168102-0002 est rejetée. 2. La demanderesse supporte les frais exposés par la titulaire.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Zhejiang Luqi Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

No. 1 &2 Workshop, No. 209, Juming Road, Sanjia Subdistrict, Jiaojiang District, Taizhou City, Zhejiang Province, République Populaire de Chine

Represented by

Dirk Hanisch

Holder · RCD owner

AVACAvia PDF extraction

France (FR)

50 lotissement le garay, 43120 Monistrol sur Loire, France

Prior art cited (3)

National designD1

electric scooter (Harley type)

CN303840018S · State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China (SIPO) · disclosed 2016-09-07

National designD2

electric scooter

CN303265086S · State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China (SIPO) · disclosed 2015-07-01

Prior useD3⚠ rejected as evidence

illegible delivery note

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that its design had been introduced in Europe in March 2017 and that the holder used views from the applicant's Chinese design filings.
  • It relied on SIPO extracts for earlier Chinese designs D1 and D2, plus an illegible delivery note D3; the holder filed no observations.
  • The Division accepted D1 and D2 as prior disclosures under Article 7, but found D3 insufficient and treated D1 as unusable for comparison because the images were too poor.
  • Comparing the contested design with D2, the Division found clear differences in handlebars, mudguards, wheels, seat, mirrors and platform, so the contested design kept individual character and the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberJessica Norma LEWIS
  • MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER
  • MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

12.08

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000113981

vs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd

2022-04-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000104359

vs Lohia e-mobility GmbH

2020-06-23Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000107759

vs A & F S.r.l.

2020-06-10Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000107760

vs A & F S.r.l.

2020-06-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000103799

vs LT Fördertechnik

2019-11-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000102599

vs Tecnimoem Care, S.L.

2019-10-10Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000103619

vs Airwheel Europe S. A.

2019-09-17Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000011186

vs LA MARE Spółka z o.o.

2019-08-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128