Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-11-30
R1630/2017-3
Contested design: 002454520-0001
Outcome
1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The holder bears the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Inhaberin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
TECNICA GROUP S.p.A.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Fante d'Italia, 56, I-31040 Giavera del Montello (TV), Italia
Represented by
Carlo Sala
Holder · RCD owner
Zeitneu GmbHvia PDF extraction
Switzerland (CH)
Otto-Schütz-Weg 3, CH-8050 Zürich, Schweiz
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
Stiefel der Marke KISS (winter boot)
http://enjoythekiss.blogspot.it/2011/12/moon-boots-party_11.html · enjoythekiss.blogspot.it · disclosed 2011-12-11
Stiefel der Marke Anouk (winter boot)
http://www.wafasblog.com · wafasblog.com
Stiefel (boot), filed by the holder 6 November 2012, published 22 February 2013
GGM Nr. 1350326-0001 · EUIPO Community Designs Register · disclosed 2013-02-22
Design published 3 November 2011
GGM Nr. 1940313-0006 · EUIPO Community Designs Register · disclosed 2011-11-03
Earlier EU trademark, filed 2 August 2011, registered 20 March 2012 (used under Art. 25(1)(e) GGV)
Unionsmarke Nr. 10 168 441 · EUIPO Trade Mark Register · disclosed 2012-03-20
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The holder (appellant) argued that the contested RCD for winter boots differed from prior art D1 in colour, number of eyelets, sole design, back strap placement, and other details creating a distinct overall impression; designer freedom was said to be restricted by functional requirements.
- ›The invalidity applicant (Tecnica Group) contended that designer freedom for winter boots is wide, as confirmed by a Google image search, and that both designs share the same basic compact laced suede boot form giving the same overall impression.
- ›The Board found that designer freedom for winter boots is high; agreed that differences in eyelet count, back strap, sole and rear shaft details do not suffice to differentiate the overall impression given the shared compact laced suede boot form; the brand name IKKII on the heel is merely a trademark and irrelevant to individual character.
- ›The Board dismissed the appeal, confirming the first-instance invalidation on the ground of lack of individual character under Article 6 GGV over prior design D1; costs borne by the holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberC. Rusconi
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0303/2021-3 | 2022-07-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 7(1) | — | 7 |
| R0630/2021-3 | 2022-06-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 7(1) | — | 7 |
| R1357/2021-3 | 2022-06-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 7(1) | — | 7 |
| R1338/2019-3 | 2020-03-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 7(1) | — | 7 |
| R1629/2017-3 | 2018-11-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 7(1) | — | 7 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R0732/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 7(1) | — | 5 |