Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-02-25
R1415/2024-3
Contested design: 002510883-0005
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the invalidity applicant bears the costs of the holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Nichtigkeitsantragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin im Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahren.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
SUZHOU ANRI CHILD PRODUCTS CO., LTD.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Building 1, Southern Zhitang Industrial Park, 215500 Changshu, Jiangsu, Volksrepublik China
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
CYBEX GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Riedingerstraße 18, 95448 Bayreuth, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
stroller frame / pushchair chassis (Kinderwagengestell G822), Locarno class 12.12
CN 201230004277.3 · Chinese Intellectual Property Office · disclosed 2012-07-18
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant (Suzhou Anri, part of Goodbaby group) sought invalidation of CYBEX's stroller chassis RCD 002510883-0005 under Articles 25(1)(b)/4/6 GGV relying on earlier Chinese design CN 201230004277.3 (published July 2012); argued that common technical elements (frame, wheels, joints, telescopic handle) are functionally determined, dominate the impression, and that remaining differences are trivial.
- ›Holder (CYBEX) disputed valid disclosure of the Chinese design to EU trade circles, denied technical necessity of most design features, and maintained the designs produced clearly different overall impressions given the wide designer freedom available for strollers.
- ›The Board confirmed disclosure under Article 7(1) GGV via the Chinese IPO registry; held designer freedom for strollers is wide (variety of forms, colours, materials); applying the four-step Article 6 GGV test, found the contested RCD produces a different overall impression through its central cylindrical joint nodes connected by a horizontal dark cross-bar, a closed trapezoid cargo basket, and distinct frame-tube angles — versus the prior art's separate joints, open mesh basket, and additional horizontal cross-member between front tubes.
- ›Both novelty and individual character upheld; the Invalidity Division's decision is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- RegistrarK. Zajfert
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1416/2024-3 | 2026-02-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b), Art 4(1) | — | 7 |
| R2502/2022-3 | 2023-06-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1826/2025-3 | 2026-04-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1) | — | 5 |
| R0333/2025-3 | 2026-01-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0204/2024-3 | 2025-06-04 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1) | — | 5 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2551/2023-3 | 2024-11-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b) | — | 5 |