Invalidity · first instance · 2023-10-16
000118758
Contested design: 002597443-0002
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 002597443-0002 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
201430180556.4 (CN 302981377 S) · China · disclosed 2014-10-29
Smart balancing electric scooter
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 · United States patent database · disclosed 2013-09-12
Hovertrax self-balancing vehicle
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/iotatrax/hovertrax/description · kickstarter.com
two-wheel, self-balancing personal vehicle
201320128469.1 (CN 203158157 U) · China · disclosed 2013-08-28
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on five earlier self-balancing vehicle disclosures.
- ›Holder argued D1 and D2 were grace-period self-disclosures, D4 lacked proof of pre-filing disclosure, and D5 was a late new prior design.
- ›The Division accepted only D3 for substantive comparison; it excluded D1 and D2 under Article 7(2), rejected D4 as unproven, and disregarded D5 as inadmissibly late.
- ›Comparing D3 with the contested design, the Division found distinct foot-pad decoration, central features, and a more robust overall appearance, producing a different overall impression.
- ›The application was rejected because the contested design retained novelty and individual character, and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.
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 |
| 000118721 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 |