DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002625202-0006

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-02-05

000125615

Contested design: 002625202-0006

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against EU design No 002625202-0006 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 002625202-0006 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

backpack

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

National designD2

backpack

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

Registered RCDD3

backpack

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

National designD4

backpack

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character and novelty over four earlier backpack designs and two Amazon product disclosures.
  • The holder argued the contested design remained novel and individually distinctive, pointing to its visual features and overall different appearance.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1-D6, identified an informed backpack user, found broad designer freedom, and held each cited design created a clearly different overall impression.
  • Because none of the earlier designs destroyed individual character or novelty, the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

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
000125556

vs DECATHLON

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