DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004076065-0009

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-03-07

000124157

Contested design: 004076065-0009

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 004076065-0009 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

BRN S.R.L.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Giorgio Amendola, 22, 47034 Forlimpopoli (FC), Italy

Holder · RCD owner

Invented Here B.V.

Netherlands (NL)

Ettenseweg 7 A, 7071 AA Ulft, Netherlands

Prior art cited (4)

CatalogD1⚠ rejected as evidence

Rightway bicycle bag

Rightway catalogue 2017

Registered RCDD2

case for cameras and video cameras and accessories

RCD No 000049176-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2003-11-25

Registered RCDD3

bag

RCD No 001607466-0010 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2009-09-21

Registered RCDD4

bag

RCD No 003302884-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-07-26

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested bicycle-bag design had inconsistent views, some function-driven features, and lacked novelty or individual character over D1 to D4 and other cited disclosures.
  • The holder replied that no new Article 25(1)(a) ground could be introduced, D1 was not proven pre-filing, the sector was crowded, and the contested design differed materially from the cited designs.
  • The Division found D1 not proven disclosed before filing, D4 excluded by the Article 7(2) grace period, and the additional unargued designs and URLs disregarded.
  • Comparing only D2 and D3, the Division held that pronounced differences in the bags' structure, flap, pockets, handles and closures created different overall impressions, so novelty and individual character remained intact.
  • The Article 25(1)(b) application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in representation costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberCristina SENERIO LLOVET

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
000124416

vs Wenbo Huang

2025-01-28Art 25(1)(b)037
000121569

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-06-12Art 25(1)(b)037
000121529

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-31Art 25(1)(b)037
000121525

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-24Art 25(1)(b)037
000121526

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-24Art 25(1)(b)037
000121527

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-23Art 25(1)(b)037
000121568

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-23Art 25(1)(b)037
000121528

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-23Art 25(1)(b)037