Invalidity · first instance · 2023-10-16
000118721
Contested design: 002597443-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application against registered Community design No 002597443-0001 is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's fixed costs of EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 002597443-0001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Organisation Intra-Groupe des achatsvia PDF extraction
France (FR)
Rue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 59170 Croix, France
Represented by
Sylvie Benoliel-claux
Holder · RCD owner
Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology co., Ltdvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
No.6 Building, 3rd Floor, Liangzhu University Keji Garden, Liangzhu Street, Yuhang, District, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, 310000, China
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
Smart balancing electric scooter
Chinese utility model registration No 201430180556.4 (CN 302981377 S) · China · disclosed 2014-10-29
Smart balancing electric scooter
Chinese utility model registration No 201420314351.5 (CN 203996649 U) · China · disclosed 2014-12-10
two-wheel, self-balancing vehicle with independent movable foot placement sections
US 8,738,278 B2 / US 2013/0238231 A1 · United States patent database · disclosed 2013-09-12
Hovertrax auto-balancing electric transporter with gyro technology
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/iotatrax/hovertrax/description · Kickstarter
two-wheel, self-balancing personal vehicle
CN 203158157 U · China · disclosed 2013-08-29
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on five earlier hoverboard disclosures and arguing broad design freedom.
- ›The holder argued Designs 1 and 2 were its own grace-period disclosures, Design 4 lacked proven disclosure, Design 5 was late, and Design 3 created a different overall impression.
- ›The Division found the claimed Chinese priority invalid because the priority document showed a colour filing while the contested design was registered in line drawings.
- ›Only Design 3 was considered valid prior art; the contested design produced a different overall impression and was not identical, so neither Article 6 nor Article 5 invalidity succeeded.
Deciding panel
- MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000128826 vs Shenzhen Lireder Industrial Co., Ltd. | 2025-08-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 7 |
| 000120579 vs Lohia e-mobility GmbH | 2025-03-12 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 7 |
| 000120480 vs VER PLAST S.r.l. | 2023-11-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 7 |
| 000120158 vs elobau GmbH & Co. KG | 2023-11-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 7 |
| 000120409 vs VER PLAST S.r.l. | 2023-11-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 7 |
| 000120410 vs VER PLAST S.r.l. | 2023-11-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 7 |
| 000118758 vs HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD | 2023-10-16 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 7 |
| 000118360 vs Wang-Chuan CHEN | 2023-08-03 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 7 |