DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002625202-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-02-05

000125556

Contested design: 002625202-0002

EUDR

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(fr)

1. La demande en nullité à l’encontre du dessin ou modèle de l’UE enregistré nº 002625202-0002 est rejetée. 2. La demanderesse supporte les frais de la titulaire, fixés à 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Gianto S.R.L.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Napoli, Italy

Represented by

Brevetti Ing. Cirillo S.R.L.

Laura Cirillo

Holder · RCD owner

Decathlon SEvia PDF extraction

France (FR)

Villeneuve d'Ascq, France

Prior art cited (6)

National designD1

Sac à dos

082010-0003 · INPI France · disclosed 2008-09-05

National designD2

Sac à dos

082010-0004 · INPI France · disclosed 2008-09-05

Registered RCDD3

Sac à dos

000962949-0001 · EUIPO database · disclosed 2008-11-11

National designD4

Sac à dos

042606-001 · INPI France · disclosed 2005-02-11

Web disclosureD5

Osprey Raptor 10 Men's Bike Hydration Backpack

ASIN B07GH97JXS · Amazon.com · disclosed 2014-04-09

Web disclosureD6

Osprey Syncro 10 Hydration Pack

ASIN B00ASKOAGW · Amazon.com · disclosed 2012-01-07

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over six earlier backpack disclosures, including French and EU designs and two Amazon listings.
  • The holder argued the contested design had clear visual differences, that the cited features were aesthetically relevant, and that the prior designs created different overall impressions.
  • The Division accepted all six prior disclosures as sufficiently proven but found the contested backpack differed in overall form, strap configuration, front pocket placement, and visual appearance.
  • Because none of the cited designs destroyed individual character or novelty, the invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberJessica N. LEWIS
  • MemberEmmanuel COLLIN
  • MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchoriginalDownload 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
000125596

vs DECATHLON

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

vs DECATHLON

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

vs DECATHLON

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

vs DECATHLON

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

vs DECATHLON

2026-02-06Art 25(1)(b)037
000125555

vs DECATHLON

2026-02-05Art 25(1)(b)037
000125597

vs DECATHLON

2026-02-05Art 25(1)(b)037
000125615

vs DECATHLON

2026-02-05Art 25(1)(b)037