DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004363588-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-06-23

000104359

Contested design: 004363588-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 0043635880001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Piaggio & C. S.P.A.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Viale Rinaldo Piaggio, 25, 56025 Pontedera (PI), Italien

Holder · RCD owner

e-bility GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Dieselstraße 28, 53424 Remagen, Deutschland

Prior art cited (2)

National designD1

Zweiradfahrzeug / Motorroller

Italienische Geschmacksmustereintragung Nr. 83297 · Italy · disclosed 2002-01-04

Trade markD2

3D-Darstellung eines Motorrollers

Italienische Marke Nr. 1556520 · Italy · disclosed 2013-09-17

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over Italian design D1 and Italian 3D trademark D2, and also invoked an earlier distinctive sign and Italian copyright in the Vespa scooter shape.
  • The holder argued the contested scooter design created a different overall impression from D1 and D2, did not use any protectable distinctive sign from D2, and did not reproduce the copyright-protected Vespa features.
  • The Invalidity Division accepted D1 and D2 as disclosed prior rights but found the contested design was not identical and produced a different overall impression, given visible differences in the mudguard, headlamp, step-through area, side panels and rear view.
  • It also found no likelihood of confusion or use of the earlier distinctive sign, and no unauthorized use of the copyright-protected Vespa core; the invalidity application was therefore rejected in full and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

12.11

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000009968

vs IPOST EXPRESS S.R.L.

2018-05-11Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f)1210
000115207

vs ELWEDYS

2021-11-05Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)129
000010730

vs BEVERAGES Mark Limited

2018-06-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(e)9
000119359

vs TECH LIVING LIMITED

2023-06-12Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(e)8
000113981

vs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd

2022-04-08Invalidity 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