DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006622015-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-12-04

R1821/2022-3

Contested design: 006622015-0001

CDRAppellant: holdermedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant’s costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(it)

1. Il ricorso è respinto; 2. Le spese sostenute dalla richiedente nei procedimenti di nullità e di ricorso sono poste a carico della titolare.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Creative 7 UK Ltd.via PDF extraction

United Kingdom (GB)

Miners Road, Llay Industrial Estate, Wrexham, LL12 0PJ, Regno Unito

Holder · RCD owner

Gruppo Veneziano S.r.l.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Boscofangone Zona Asi, S.n.c., 80035 Nola (NA), Italia

Represented by

Francesco Paolo Fumarola

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureD1

trolley backpack

Cabin Max Lyon · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2011-01-11

Web disclosureD2

trolley backpack

Cabin Go 5520 · Amazon.it · disclosed 2017-11-02

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The design holder argued that the invalidity evidence was procedurally deficient, that the trolley-backpack sector was crowded, and that the contested design remained new and individually distinctive.
  • The invalidity applicant maintained that the earlier trolley-backpack disclosures were sufficiently identified and that the contested design copied their dominant features.
  • The Board accepted Annex B.2 as supplementary evidence, found the Amazon.it disclosure to predate filing, and considered the author’s freedom fairly broad apart from functional constraints.
  • It concluded that the conflicting trolley backpacks created the same overall impression, with only minor wheel-attachment and colour differences, so the appeal was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • ChairS. Stürmann
  • RapporteurS. Rizzo
  • MemberC. Negro
  • RegistrarR. Vidal Romero

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R2486/2019-32021-01-21Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 63(1)7
R0181/2025-32025-05-27Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0827/2024-32025-03-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1336/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0797/2024-32025-01-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1123/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1124/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1125/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5