DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004168102-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-06-26

000103463

Contested design: 004168102-0003

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against RCD No 004168102-0003 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 004168102-0003 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)

PatentD1

electric bicycle (Harley type)

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

PatentD2

design in class 12-11

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

OtherD3⚠ rejected as evidence

illegible delivery note

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, alleging the holder used views from the applicant’s earlier Chinese design filings.
  • It relied on Chinese SIPO extracts for D1 and D2 and an illegible delivery note D3; the holder filed no observations.
  • The Division found D1 and D2 sufficiently disclosed under Article 7, but rejected D3 as inadequate evidence.
  • On the merits, only D2 could be compared and the contested scooter created a clearly different overall impression on the informed user.
  • The invalidity grounds were not established, so the application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder’s costs.

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