DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004363588-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-03-12

000120579

Contested design: 004363588-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 0043635880001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Piaggio & C. S.P.A.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Viale Rinaldo Piaggio, 25, 56025 Pontedera (PI), Italien

Holder · RCD owner

Lohia e-mobility GmbH

Germany (DE)

c/o Cormoran GmbH, Am Zirkus 2, 10117 Berlin, Deutschland

Represented by

Taylor Wessing

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureD1

Motorroller "1954 L"

https://web.archive.org/web/20160912205408/http:/de-de.kumpanelectric.com/produkte/modell-1954l.html · Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2016-09-12

National designD2

chinesisches Geschmacksmuster eines Motorrollers

CN301039048D · Chinese Intellectual Property Office database · disclosed 2009-10-14

Web disclosureD3

online article on the Vespa Granturismo / VESPA GT motor scooter

https://www.motorbox.com/moto/moto-viste-e-provate/moto-primocontatto/vespa-granturismo · MotorBox website · disclosed 2003-03-26

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over prior designs D1, D2, and D3 for motor scooters.
  • The holder argued the contested design remained new and individual, pointing to multiple visual differences from each cited prior design.
  • The Division accepted that D1, D2, and D3 were properly disclosed before the filing date but found they were not identical to the contested design.
  • It held the designer's freedom was average and the visual differences created a different overall impression, so individual character remained intact.
  • The application was rejected in full and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

12.11

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000128826

vs Shenzhen Lireder Industrial Co., Ltd.

2025-08-18Art 25(1)(b)127
000120480

vs VER PLAST S.r.l.

2023-11-13Art 25(1)(b)127
000120158

vs elobau GmbH & Co. KG

2023-11-10Art 25(1)(b)127
000120409

vs VER PLAST S.r.l.

2023-11-10Art 25(1)(b)127
000120410

vs VER PLAST S.r.l.

2023-11-10Art 25(1)(b)127
000118758

vs HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD

2023-10-16Art 25(1)(b)127
000118721

vs HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD

2023-10-16Art 25(1)(b)127
000118360

vs Wang-Chuan CHEN

2023-08-03Art 25(1)(b)127