Invalidity · first instance · 2023-06-27
000120639
Contested design: 009078249-0002
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, the contested Community design 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 0090782490002 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 (7)
scooter [toy]
RCD No 0043642060001 · disclosed 2017-10-02
scooter [toy]
RCD No 0043642060002 · disclosed 2017-10-02
scooter [toy]
RCD No 0043642060003 · disclosed 2017-10-02
Highwaykick Kick 1 - Scoot & Ride 2-in-1 Kickboard with Seat, Ash
ASIN B07GXKBPTS · Amazon · disclosed 2018-08-28
Scoot & Ride Highwaykick 1 Ash Scooter
ASIN B07L48GVRB · Amazon · disclosed 2018-12-06
Scoot & Ride Scooter
Facebook · disclosed 2021-07-13
Cooghi Bike
Facebook · disclosed 2021-10-26
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant claimed the contested children's scooter lacked novelty over D1 to D3 and lacked individual character over D1 to D7, arguing the key shapes, proportions, and component placement matched the earlier designs.
- ›The applicant also argued the push rod should not affect the comparison because it was technically functional; the holder filed no observations in reply.
- ›The Division found Facebook evidence sufficient to disclose D7 before 7 July 2022, identified only limited constraints on scooter design freedom, and treated the contested line drawings as the comparison reference.
- ›Because the contested design shared the same striking body shape, configuration, and very similar proportions as D7, the informed user received the same overall impression, so the design lacked individual character and was invalidated.
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 |