DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008631550-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-05-19

000117252

Contested design: 008631550-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 008631550-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

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

Italy (IT)

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

Holder · RCD owner

Xinmin Liang

China (CN)

No. 39, Danya Road, Zeguo Town, Wenling City, Zhejiang Province 317523, People's Republic of China

Represented by

Maria Pastor Palomares

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDdesign A

motorcycle design

Community design registration No 002192518-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-02-10

Web disclosuredesign B

motorcycle shown in the Vespa Primavera 150 review article

www.rideapart.com - “Don’t Fear the Scooter- Vespa Primavera 150 review” · rideapart.com · disclosed 2015-01-06

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(b) CDR, arguing the contested scooter design lacked novelty and individual character over earlier disclosed designs.
  • The applicant relied on earlier RCD No 002192518-0001 and a 6 January 2015 RideApart article showing the Vespa Primavera 150; it also cited an earlier invalidity decision as supportive context.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found both earlier designs were validly disclosed and that the contested design reproduced the same overall impression, with only minor differences such as the stand and rear crash bar.
  • The application was upheld because the contested design lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b) CDR, and the holder was ordered to pay costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
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