Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-05-08
R0908/2024-3
Contested design: 008848766-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Yi Wu Lian Xiang Trading Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
No.35, Group 3, Fanzhuang Vil., Nanmachang Township, Economic and Technological Development Zone, 223000 Huaian City, Jiangsu, China
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
UAB Orbio worldvia PDF extraction
LT
K. Donelaičio g. 60, LT 44248 Kaunas, Lithuania
Represented by
Rytis Rudzinskas
Prior art cited (1)
Amazon listing for the 'Tombro Huusk knife' / 'Huusk Knife Forged Viking Knives Sharp Boning knife'
ASIN B098L84TLB · Amazon.com · disclosed 2021-07-03
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed, arguing the Amazon evidence was unreliable, potentially manipulated, US-only, and insufficient to prove disclosure or the same overall impression.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that the Amazon listing and later screenshots consistently showed the same knife, ASIN B098L84TLB, and public availability since 3 July 2021.
- ›The Board held that later listing updates did not affect the key disclosure elements: the knife image, the Amazon source, and the 3 July 2021 availability date.
- ›The Board found the prior knife was publicly disclosed under Article 7(1) CDR and produced the same overall impression as the contested RCD on the informed user.
- ›The appeal was dismissed, so the invalidity decision stood and the design holder was ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberS. Rizzo
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 ↗ |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2274/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2273/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1575/2025-3 | 2026-04-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1394/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1318/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1396/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |