Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-06-06
R0388/2018-3
Contested design: 003385913-0001
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled, the invalidity application is rejected, and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the design holder's costs in both instances.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision and rejects the application for a declaration of invalidity; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
CROCS, INC.via PDF extraction
United States (US)
7477 East Dry Creek Parkway, Niwot, Colorado 80503, United States of America
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
COQUI WORLD s.r.o.via PDF extraction
Czechia (CZ)
Vyšehradská 1349/2, 128 00 Praha 2, Czech Republic
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Three-dimensional shape of a clog-style shoe (Crocs Classic)
Swedish trade mark No 400 514 · Swedish Intellectual Property Office · disclosed 2009-01-16
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (CROCS) based its application on Article 25(1)(e) CDR, alleging the contested clog RCD made use of its earlier Swedish 3D trade mark and created a likelihood of confusion; the Invalidity Division upheld the application.
- ›The design holder (COQUI WORLD, appellant) argued genuine use was not proven and the marks were not sufficiently similar; the distinctive elements of the RCD (frog motif, 'COQUI' word, different vent count) differentiated it clearly.
- ›The Board assumed genuine use for the benefit of the invalidity applicant but found the inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark low (mere basic clog shape); visual similarity was low and phonetic similarity nil due to the 'COQUI' verbal element; no likelihood of confusion.
- ›The contested decision was annulled and the invalidity application rejected; the invalidity applicant bears costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberC. Rusconi
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1496/2015-3 | 2018-01-19 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(e) | — | 5 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(e) | — | 4 |
| R0842/2022-3 | 2023-03-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(e) | — | 4 |
| R1688/2021-3 | 2022-08-31 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(e) | — | 4 |
| R1689/2021-3 | 2022-08-31 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(e) | — | 4 |
| R1663/2020-3 | 2022-08-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(e) | — | 4 |
| R1087/2021-3 | 2022-05-02 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(e) | — | 4 |
| R1553/2019-3 | 2020-05-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(e) | — | 4 |