Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-01-15
R2238/2022-3
Contested design: 008029615-0001
Outcome
The appeal is upheld, the contested decision is annulled, the invalidity application is rejected, and the invalidity applicant must bear the holder's costs in both instances.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1. Il ricorso è accolto; 2. La decisione impugnata è annullata e la domanda di nullità è rigettata; 3. La richiedente la nullità dovrà sopportare le spese sostenute dalla titolare nei procedimenti di nullità e ricorso.
CostsApplicant 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
Represented by
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)
convertible cabin backpack
Cabin Max Universal Cabin Bag 2 in 1 · Amazon.co.uk / YouTube · disclosed 2019-07-04
convertible cabin backpack
Cabin Go MAX 5565 · Amazon.it · disclosed 2020-03-02
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the backpack design lacked novelty and individual character over earlier Cabin Max bags shown on Amazon and YouTube.
- ›The design holder challenged the reliability of the internet evidence, invoked grace-period protection for one cited model, and argued that visible design differences gave the contested backpack a distinct overall impression.
- ›The Board accepted disclosure of the Annex A model before filing, found the Annex B model excluded by the grace period, and held that the contested backpack differed sufficiently in visible features from the relevant earlier model.
- ›The appeal was upheld, the invalidity decision was annulled, and the invalidity application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarR. Vidal Romero
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1784/2022-3 | 2024-08-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1936/2023-3 | 2024-04-09 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0605/2021-3 | 2022-12-13 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1221/2021-3 | 2022-11-23 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1223/2021-3 | 2022-11-23 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1222/2021-3 | 2022-06-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1220/2021-3 | 2022-06-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0024/2021-3 | 2022-03-16 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |