Invalidity · first instance · 2023-06-27
000120640
Contested design: 009078249-0003
Outcome
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 009078249-0003 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 · disclosed 2017-10-02
scooters [toys]
RCD No 0043642060002 · disclosed 2017-10-02
scooters [toys]
RCD No 0043642060003 · disclosed 2017-10-02
Highwaykick Kick 1 – Scoot & Ride 2-in-1 Kickboard with Seat, Ash
https://www.amazon.de; ASIN B07GXKBPTS · Amazon · disclosed 2018-08-28
Scoot & Ride Highwaykick 1 Ash Scooter
https://www.amazon.de; ASIN B07L48GVRB · Amazon · disclosed 2018-12-06
Scoot & Ride Scooter
Facebook snapshot dated 13/07/2021 · Facebook · disclosed 2021-07-13
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over prior designs D1 to D6, arguing the scooter’s shape, proportions and component placement were the same.
- ›The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
- ›The Division assessed individual character against prior design D5, found internet disclosure proven, and held the similarities in the body shape and component configuration outweighed minor differences.
- ›The contested design created the same overall impression on the informed user, lacked individual character, and was declared invalid with costs against the holder.
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 |