DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008644918-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-05-17

000120338

Contested design: 008644918-0001

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

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 008644918-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Yueer Tanvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Rm. 1412, Bldg. 1, Qinghu Mingquan, Longhua Dist., Shenzhen 518000, China

Holder · RCD owner

Hua Hang Yun Supply Chain (Hongkong) Co., Limitedvia PDF extraction

Hong Kong (HK)

Room 605, 6/F, Fa Yuen Commercial Building, 75-77 Fa Yuen Street, Mongkok, Kowloon, Hongkong, Hong Kong

Represented by

Ákos Süle

Prior art cited (5)

Web disclosureD1

Rhinowalk 3 in 1 bolsa de bicicleta

ASIN B08RJJ5ZXG · Amazon.com · disclosed 2020-12-29

Web disclosureD2

Waterfly Bicycle Bag

ASIN B07WQVM17K · Amazon.de · disclosed 2019-08-19

Web disclosureD3

Wildken Bicycle Pannier Bags

ASIN B09162W1DG · Amazon.de · disclosed 2021-04-14

Web disclosureD4

Multifunctional Bicycle Pannier Bag

ASIN B07T6JDPMS · Amazon.de · disclosed 2019-06-17

Web disclosureD5

BAIGIO Borsa

ASIN B07V4CGBJK · Amazon.it · disclosed 2019-07-09

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over five bicycle pannier bag designs disclosed on Amazon before 9 August 2021.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted D1 as publicly disclosed before filing, identified the informed user as a user of rear pannier bicycle bags, and found somewhat limited designer freedom.
  • It held that the contested design and D1 produced the same overall impression despite minor differences, so the design lacked individual character and was declared invalid.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberIneta GALUBICKE
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ

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

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