DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000105051-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-04-17

000119319

Contested design: 000105051-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 000105051-0001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Inhabers, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Heinrich Sieber & Co. GmbH + Co. KGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Am Kraftwerk 5, 83435 Bad Reichenhall, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

Dieter Achilles

Germany (DE)

Bahnhofstr. 141, 63263 Neu-Isenburg, Deutschland

Represented by

Preu Bohlig & Partner

Prior art cited (4)

Utility modelAnlage MP 1

utility model document

DE G 8201173 · DE · disclosed 1982-01-20

Web disclosureAnlage MP 2

images of the bag from the website of Achilles Concept GmbH & Co. KG

website of Achilles Concept GmbH & Co. KG

PatentAnlage MP 3

patent document

US 4.871.100 · US · disclosed 1989-10-03

Utility modelAnlage MP 4

utility model document

DE 297 03 645 U 1 · DE · disclosed 1997-02-20

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(a)Article 4(1)Article 25(1)(b)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the contested RCD did not show one clear design, mixed photographs and drawings improperly, and lacked novelty and individual character over earlier utility models, a patent, and website images.
  • The holder replied that all views showed the same shopping-cart bag from different perspectives, the hook element was only a partial view, mixed visual formats were permissible, and the novelty challenge was not substantiated.
  • The Invalidity Division found the six views consistently depicted one product, with figure 6 as a permissible partial view, so the design satisfied Article 3(a) and did not breach the representation requirements.
  • The Division also held the novelty and individual-character ground unsubstantiated because the applicant did not link specific prior-art images to the contested design, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs awarded to the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload 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
000127775

vs Invented Here B.V.

2025-12-12Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)039
000126658

vs iFixit GmbH

2025-09-04Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)039
000126625

vs iFixit GmbH

2025-08-28Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)039
000125557

vs DECATHLON

2026-02-06Art 25(1)(b)037
000125603

vs DECATHLON

2026-02-06Art 25(1)(b)037
000125601

vs DECATHLON

2026-02-06Art 25(1)(b)037
000125639

vs DECATHLON

2026-02-06Art 25(1)(b)037
000125596

vs DECATHLON

2026-02-06Art 25(1)(b)037