DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001252803-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-05-05

000111281

Contested design: 001252803-0003

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application 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. 001252803-0003 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

Jamara e.K.via PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Am Lauerbühl 5, 88317 Aichstetten, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

Micro Mobility Systems AG

Switzerland (CH)

Bahnhofstr.10, 8700 Küsnacht-Zürich, Schweiz

Prior art cited (4)

National designD1

three-wheeled scooter design

Chinese design No. 01318460.1 · DesignView · disclosed 2002-04-10

National designD2

three-wheeled scooter design

German design No. 400114510001 · DPMA database · disclosed 2001-04-10

Registered RCDBDR 4

various scooter designs with padded handles

EUIPO eSearch database

CatalogD3⚠ rejected as evidence

catalog image of the model "MINI MICRO CLASSIC" next to the year 2001

"m-cro: better urban lifestyle" product catalog, pages 24-25 · product catalog

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 6Article 7Article 8

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over Chinese design D1, German design D2, catalog disclosure D3, and common scooter features such as padded grips.
  • The holder argued the contested scooter remained new and individual, stressed differences in the front fork and handlebar, and said the catalog image was an error that did not prove disclosure.
  • The Division accepted D1 and D2 as adequately disclosed prior designs, but found D3 unproven as a public disclosure under Article 7.
  • Comparing the overall impressions, the Division held the contested design differed sufficiently from D1 and D2, so the Article 25(1)(b) challenge failed and the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

21.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000128896

vs Sc Pitikot Store Srl

2025-08-18Art 25(1)(b)217
000124438

vs АУТДОР ПЛЕЙ

2025-04-03Art 25(1)(b)217
000126927

vs Jiujiang Storm E-Commerce Co., Ltd.

2025-03-25Art 25(1)(b)217
000121617

vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o.

2024-05-29Art 25(1)(b)217
000121616

vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o.

2024-05-29Art 25(1)(b)217
000121615

vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o.

2024-05-10Art 25(1)(b)217
000114244

vs UTILIS

2024-01-09Art 25(1)(b)217
000121427

vs Jinhua Baiwei Plastic Products Co., Ltd.

2023-11-15Art 25(1)(b)217