DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006622015-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-07-19

000114869

Contested design: 006622015-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the registered Community design No 006622015-0001 is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(it)

1. La domanda di dichiarazione di nullità è accolta. 2. Il disegno o modello comunitario registrato n. 006622015-0001 è dichiarato nullo. 3. Il titolare sopporta l’onere delle spese, fissate a 750 EUR.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Creative 7 UK Ltdvia PDF extraction

United Kingdom (GB)

Miners Road, Llay Industrial Estate, Wrexham Wrexham [Wrecsam GB-WRC] LL12 0PJ United Kingdom

Holder · RCD owner

Luigi Aprilevia PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Croce Rossa N.147, 80047 San Giuseppe Vesuviano (NA) Italy

Represented by

Francesco Paolo Fumarola

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureD1

Cabin Go 5520 trolley backpack shown on Amazon.it

ASIN B07DKBMWFY · Amazon.it · disclosed 2017-11-02

Web disclosureD2

Detailed images of the Cabin Go 5520 trolley backpack in another colour shown on Amazon.it

Amazon.it · disclosed 2017-11-02

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on prior Amazon disclosures of the Cabin Go 5520 trolley backpack before the contested filing date.
  • The holder challenged the adequacy and timing of the applicant's evidence, objected to the late-filed annexes, and argued that the trolley-backpack sector was crowded and designer freedom was limited.
  • The Division admitted the later annexes as supplementary evidence for the same prior model and found the Amazon extracts proved public disclosure on 2 November 2017 under Article 7(1) CDR.
  • It held that the contested design and the prior Cabin Go designs created the same overall impression on the informed user, with only minor differences in wheel attachments, colours, and missing bottom view.
  • The application was upheld under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4(1) and 6(1)(b), so the contested RCD was declared invalid and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberJessica LEWIS
  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

03.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131964

vs Shenzhen Debaisite Trading Co., Ltd.

2026-04-22REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000129304

vs APRIMONIA Ltd.

2026-03-25REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000130547

vs Rong Hua

2026-02-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000130887

vs Suqi Zhuang

2026-02-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000130221

vs WITTCHEN S.A.

2025-12-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000130241

vs WITTCHEN S.A.

2025-12-16REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000130204

vs WITTCHEN S.A.

2025-12-16REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038
000130142

vs Edita Avakian

2025-12-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)038