DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006254546-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-07-12

000114602

Contested design: 006254546-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must bear the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 006254546-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Plan M GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Wallstr. 3, 45468 Mühlheim an der Ruhr, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Xia Longvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Room 506, Building 7, Jiangchengshijia, Xiaogang Subdistrict, Beilun District, Ningbo, Zhejiang Ningbo, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (5)

Web disclosureAnnex 1⚠ rejected as evidence

Internet Archive excerpt showing captures of the UCARVER website home page

https://web.archive.org/web/20141101000000*/https:/www.ucarver.com/content/start/index.html · Internet Archive / Wayback Machine

CatalogAnnex 2

UCARVER e-scooter manual/catalog showing the aluminium model scooter

UCARVER manual · disclosed 2014-09-09

PublicationAnnex 3

Mi+ Motion Innovation magazine pages showing the UCARVER scooter

https://www.issuu.com/researchtub/docs/mi_produktfolder_datenblatt_ucarver · Issuu / Mi+ Motion Innovation · disclosed 2015-06-02

PublicationAnnex 4

Online magazine article showing images of the UCARVER e-scooter

https://www.pressreader.com/austria/kurier-3402/20150628/282918089110581 · PressReader · disclosed 2015-06-28

Web disclosureAnnex 5

Website printout depicting the UCARVER e-scooter

https://www.integrative-betriebe.at/index.php/leistungskatalog/e-bilitaet/ucarver-alu · integrative-betriebe.at

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested e-scooter RCD was very similar to the UCARVER scooter disclosed before filing and sought invalidity.
  • Holder filed no observations in reply to the invalidity application or the prior-design evidence.
  • The Division rejected Annex 1 alone as proof of design disclosure but accepted Annexes 2 to 5 as showing prior public disclosure of the aluminium UCARVER scooter.
  • Given broad designer freedom, the compared scooters created the same overall impression on the informed user, so the RCD lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b).
  • The application was upheld, the contested RCD was declared invalid, and the holder was ordered to pay EUR 750 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • 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

12.11

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000124336

vs Radosław Pryba

2026-05-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128
000129038

vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128
000129077

vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128
000128979

vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128
000129039

vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128
000129055

vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128
000129075

vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128
000129076

vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128