DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004370914-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-09-17

000103619

Contested design: 004370914-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected and the applicant must pay 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 004370914-0001 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

Nino Roboticsvia PDF extraction

France (FR)

18 avenue de Montpellier, 34800 Clermont l’Hérault, France

Represented by

Marie Sonnier-Poquillon

Holder · RCD owner

Airwheel Europe S.A.via PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

Rue Laid Burnait 3, 1348 Louvain-1a-Neuve, Belgium

Represented by

Agency Arnopatents

Prior art cited (1)

International design

autonomous self-balanced personal transporter

International design registration No DM/085317 · International Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-06-19

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over earlier international design registration No DM/085317, arguing the visible differences were minor or technically dictated.
  • The holder argued the contested wheelchair design had several visible differences from the earlier design and therefore produced a different overall impression on the informed user.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of DM/085317 but found the identified differences in the steering mechanism, armrests, frame, footrest, wheels and holders were not immaterial.
  • Given broad design freedom and the cumulative visual differences, the contested RCD retained individual character, so the invalidity application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

12.12

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
000011186

vs LA MARE Spółka z o.o.

2019-08-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000104299

vs Milan Bříštěla

2019-07-29Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128