Invalidity · first instance · 2023-06-27
000120638
Contested design: 009078249-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 009078249-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Scoot & Ride Holding GmbHvia PDF extraction
Austria (AT)
Steiffstrasse 1, 4710 Grieskirchen, Austria
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Anna Sędkowska Sinusvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Grażyny Bacewicz 106, 92413 Łódź, Poland
Prior art cited (6)
scooters [toys]
RCD No 0043642060001 · EUIPO registration publication · disclosed 2017-10-02
scooters [toys]
RCD No 0043642060002 · EUIPO registration publication · disclosed 2017-10-02
scooters [toys]
RCD No 0043642060003 · EUIPO registration publication · disclosed 2017-10-02
Highwaykick Kick 1 - Scoot & Ride 2-in-1 Kickboard with Seat, Ash
https://www.amazon.de; ASIN B07GXKBPTS · Amazon.de · disclosed 2018-08-28
Scoot & Ride Highwaykick 1 Ash Scooter
ASIN B07L48GVRB · Amazon.de and Facebook · disclosed 2018-12-06
Scoot & Ride Scooter
Facebook post dated 2021-07-13 · Facebook · disclosed 2021-07-13
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over earlier scooter designs D1 to D6, relying mainly on the same body shape, proportions, and component placement.
- ›The holder filed no observations and left the invalidity application undefended.
- ›The Division first assessed individual character against prior design D5 and accepted its internet disclosure through Amazon and Facebook evidence before the contested filing date.
- ›It found the scooters shared the same striking curved body and configuration, while the few differences in handlebar pattern, wheel spokes, and surface relief were minor.
- ›The contested design lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b) CDR, so the application was upheld and the design declared invalid.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberIneta GALUBICKE
- MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000131885 vs Zhenkai Cui | 2026-04-30 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000129622 vs Squar3D Aps | 2026-04-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000129681 vs Squar3D Aps | 2026-04-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000126976 vs Dohány Kft. | 2026-04-08 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000131547 vs Brandworl Management Co., Limited | 2026-04-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000131507 vs Shenzhen Chenyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. | 2026-03-31 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000130128 vs joboo GmbH | 2026-02-03 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000130086 vs CROSS BORDEP (HK) CO., LIMITED | 2026-02-02 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |