UK IPO Upholds Bum Bag Design Despite Online Prior Art

The UK Intellectual Property Office published on 11 November decision O/0992/26, issued on 5 November, rejecting an individual's application to invalidate registered design No. 6303339 for a waist bag owned by Shenzhen Yisimei Technology Co., Ltd. The design remains registered, subject to appeal. The applicant claimed lack of novelty and individual character over five prior designs: three e-commerce listings and two Chinese design patents. The hearing officer accepted all five as prior disclosures, but found that the contested design produces a different overall impression on the informed user.

E-commerce listings: "images can be changed" is not enough

The proprietor argued that, although the listings showed first-available dates, product photos can be changed at any time, and that no verified reviews with photos had been filed. Following an earlier appeal decision of the Appointed Person (BL O/374/21), the hearing officer noted that the proprietor had neither filed contrary evidence nor explained how listings are created or amended, and accepted the listings on the balance of probabilities. Paragraph 17 confirms that e-commerce listings and publications by IP offices are capable of constituting disclosures. The officer added that nothing turned on this, given the later finding on overall impression.

Chinese design records: a translator's statement sufficed

The two Chinese prior designs were filed as extracts from the Chinese design register. The proprietor objected that no certified translations were provided. The applicant's representative filed a witness statement confirming fluency in Chinese and English, that they had made the translations and that these were accurate; the proprietor did not seek cross-examination. The translations were accepted.

Later-found designs stayed outside the comparison

In February 2025 the applicant told the Registry it had found further prior designs. The Registry replied that these could be filed as evidence, but that using them as a basis for comparison would require a request to amend the pleadings. The "amended statement of case" then filed was identical to the original, so no new prior art was introduced. The comparison was limited to the original five, and the additional waist bag images were used only to assess design freedom.

Design freedom and overall impression

The strap and its adjustability were held to be dictated by function, but shape, colour, size, number and position of pockets and materials left reasonable design freedom. A Google image search filed by the applicant included some images from after the relevant date; later designs can still show design freedom. Against the closest prior design, the contested bag is roughly cuboid with front and back of equal width, while the prior design narrows at the front, has straight sides and a different top and base in rear view. The back is not visible when worn, but users notice it when putting the bag on or using the rear pocket.

The same conclusion was reached against each of the other four designs, so the contested design has individual character and is new. The applicant was ordered to pay £350 towards the proprietor's costs.

J&C recommends: when relying on online listings to invalidate a UK design, also keep dated web archives, listings on other platforms and reviews with photos, so the images cannot easily be said to have changed. Cite Chinese design publications with translations and a translator's statement. Add prior designs found later by formally amending the pleadings; filing them only as evidence leaves them out of the comparison. Proprietors should file contrary evidence, not just say listings can be edited, and argue differences in shape and rear view.

Source: www.gov.uk | assets.publishing.service.gov.uk