DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008546204-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-12-12

000127775

Contested design: 008546204-0004

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered EU design No 0085462040004 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)

Forlimpopoli (FC), Italy

Holder · RCD owner

Invented Here B.V.

Netherlands (NL)

Ulft, Netherlands

Prior art cited (7)

CatalogD1⚠ rejected as evidence

CB11009, CB7018 and CB8090 bags

RIGHTWAY 2017 catalogue · RIGHTWAY catalogue

CatalogD2⚠ rejected as evidence

TR81115 bag

TBG 2015-2016 catalogue · TBG paper catalogue 2015-2016

CatalogD2

TR96015 bag

TBG 2015-2016 catalogue · TBG paper catalogue 2015-2016

Web disclosureD3⚠ rejected as evidence

City Me 13 bag

www.bergfreunde.it · bergfreunde.it · disclosed 2020-03-30

CatalogD3⚠ rejected as evidence

Aqua Back bag

Vague catalogue · Vague catalogue

CatalogD4⚠ rejected as evidence

Land's End bag

BROOKS 2015 catalogue · The Book for Cyclists, Brooks 2015

CatalogD4⚠ rejected as evidence

John O'Groats bag

BROOKS 2015 catalogue · The Book for Cyclists, Brooks 2015

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 25(1)(b)Article 3(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7

Argument summary

  • Applicant alleged inconsistent views under Article 25(1)(a) and argued lack of novelty or, at least, lack of individual character over bags shown in D1-D4.
  • Holder denied any inconsistency, challenged the dating and source linkage of most prior-art materials, and argued the cited bags could not support a valid comparison.
  • The Division found the seven views reconcilable as one bag design and held that most D1-D4 materials were not sound proof of disclosure; only TR96015 from D2 was accepted for comparison.
  • Comparing TR96015 with the contested design, the Division found clear differences in proportions, closure, handle and decoration, so the contested design remained novel and had individual character.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberCarlos MATEO PÉREZ

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
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
000119319

vs Dieter Achilles

2023-04-17Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)039
000125601

vs DECATHLON

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

vs DECATHLON

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

vs DECATHLON

2026-02-06Art 25(1)(b)037
000125557

vs DECATHLON

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

vs DECATHLON

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