DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007872122-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-05-31

000115782

Contested design: 007872122-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 0078721220001 is declared invalid. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Concept2, Inc.via PDF extraction

United States (US)

105 Industrial Park Drive, Morrisville, Vermont 05661, United States of America

Represented by

Bugnion S.p.A.

Holder · RCD owner

Yin-Hsuan Leevia PDF extraction

Taiwan (TW)

No.61, Meizhou 2nd Rd., Yilan City, Yilan County 260, Taiwan

Represented by

Cabinet Chaillot

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure

Concept2 'BikeErg' indoor exercise bicycle

Concept2 website / Instagram / Fibo Showdown Facebook account · disclosed 2017-08-01

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on its earlier BikeErg design, arguing broad designer freedom and near identity of the overall appearance.
  • Holder argued informed users are highly attentive, many bicycle features are function-driven, and the identified differences were enough to establish novelty and individual character.
  • The Division accepted the applicant's internet and social-media evidence as prior disclosure of the BikeErg before the filing date of the contested design.
  • It found substantial coincidence in overall shape, proportions, arrangement, and visible components, while the holder's differences were too minor to alter the overall impression.
  • The application was upheld, the contested design was declared invalid under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4(1) and 6(1)(b) CDR, and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

21.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131885

vs Zhenkai Cui

2026-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129622

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129681

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000126976

vs Dohány Kft.

2026-04-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131547

vs Brandworl Management Co., Limited

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131507

vs Shenzhen Chenyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-31REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130128

vs joboo GmbH

2026-02-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130086

vs CROSS BORDEP (HK) CO., LIMITED

2026-02-02REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218