• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Déjà-vu decisive: Piaggio lost design dispute over e-scooters

23. January 2020

Although a number of similar elements were present, Piaggio failed with an application for invalidity against a more recent Community design. No impression of Déjà-vu was created, the CFI ruled.

Piaggio & C. (Italy) lost the case Piaggio & C./v EUIPO – Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry Group (China) (T-219/18) concerning the design of an e-scooter before the European Court of First Instance (CFI). Due to the lack of individual character of a design and also due to the use of the earlier sign with distinctive character in a design (see Article 25 of Regulation No 6/2002), the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal rejecting Piaggio & C.’s application for a declaration of invalidity of the design of a scooter was upheld.

Älteres Design E-Roller von Piaggio
Earlier Design E-Scooter of Piaggio

Lack of individual character of the design

The fact that individual features of an older design are known in advance does not preclude the individual character of a newer design, the European Court already ruled in the invalidity proceedings for a luminaire design at the beginning of 2019. The decisive question is rather: Is there a déjà vu?

The court also argued in the Piaggio case. Although there are a number of common elements, the contested design and the earlier design “Vespa LX” produce different overall impressions on the informed user, the court ruled. Therefore, the contested design of Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry Group does not lack individual character within the meaning of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002 in relation to the earlier design.

In particular, Piaggio could not claim that the contested design gave the impression of “déjà vu” in relation to the earlier design, the CFI stated. General design tendencies also play no role in the assessment of individual character.

In addition, distinctive features of the earlier design were claimed which were perceptible to the informed user and influenced the overall impression. Therefore, the applicant submits that there has been use of an earlier sign with distinctive character in a design (under Article 25 of Regulation No 6/2002).

Design E-Roller der Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry
Design E-Scooter of Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry

 

No likelihood of confusion

Nor is there any infringement of Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation No 6/2002 which Piaggio raised in its appeal against the decision of the Board of Appeal.

The CFI held that the Board of Appeal was right to find that there was no likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public and no likelihood of association. The Board of Appeal reached its conclusions by means of an objective technical assessment of the differences between the designs at issue and also set out the reasons at the requisite legal level. More generally, the applicant submits that the average consumer will, with a high degree of attention, perceive the style, lines and appearance of the three-dimensional shape of the scooter protected by the earlier mark as visually different from that of the contested design.

Furthermore, the Court of First Instance considered that the specific overall appearance and the particular shape with ’round, feminine and ‘old’ character’ of the earlier design could not be found in the contested design, which is characterised by straight lines and angles.

It follows from all of the foregoing that the contested designs are perceived as different, the CFI held, and therefore the application of Piaggio & C. for a declaration of invalidity of the newer design was rightly rejected.

Do you also wish to protect or defend your design?

Each case is considered individually and carefully. Why not make use of a non-binding recall appointment with us today!


 

Source for text und images:

Judgement  EU:T:2019:681

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconDesign Law Tag iconDéjà-vu,  design dispute concerning e-scooters,  individual character of a design,  individuality,  individuality of a design,  Peculiarity of a design,  Piaggio,  Vespa

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Design Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

17. February 2022
China joins the Hague Agreement

China joins the Hague Agreement

4. February 2022
Grill bowl design: patent drawings against design

Grill bowl design: patent drawings against design

31. January 2022
BGH Radiator Design: Right to be heard

BGH Radiator Design: Right to be heard

4. January 2022
Classifications 2022: IPC, Nice and Locarno

Classifications 2022: IPC, Nice and Locarno

19. November 2021
Napkin vs. table linen design: Antique spell book refutes Individual character

Napkin vs. table linen design: Antique spell book refutes Individual character

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.