A bicycle is a composite product. A saddle is part of a bicycle, because a bicycle cannot be used without one. When assessing normal use, is it about what you see when you use the product (i.e. when you are cycling)? In that case, the design of the bottom of a saddle cannot be a valid design. After all, as a cyclist, you cannot see the bottom of your saddle while cycling. Or should you explain normal use more broadly?
The European Court chooses the latter way. Normal use includes not only the purpose of the product (cycling), but also other uses (apart from maintenance and repair). After all, you store a bicycle in a bicycle rack or lift it to transport it. It falls under normal use when the bottom of a saddle shows. An important ruling for companies to protect the design of parts as a design and for companies offering alternatives to distance themselves from the original design.
