Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-03-03
R0976/2019-3
Contested design: 001176135-0250
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the appellant (invalidity applicant) is ordered to bear the respondent's costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Beschwerdeführerin trägt die der Beschwerdegegnerin entstanden Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
North Group Germany GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Mehlbydiek 20, 24376 Kappeln, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Rieker Schuh AGvia PDF extraction
Switzerland (CH)
Stockwiesenstraße 1, 8240 Thayngen, Schweiz
Represented by
Prior art cited (6)
Schuhe (shoes)
GGM 817 903-0222 · Blatt für Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster Nr. 2007/166 · disclosed 2007-11-14
Schuhe (shoes)
GGM 817 903-0223 · Blatt für Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster Nr. 2007/166 · disclosed 2007-11-14
Modell Arroyo II/Taos (shoes) — only Ansicht 2 accepted as disclosed
Internet, USA, Herbst 2006
Modell Geox (shoes)
Modell Romika Gabriele 03 (shoes)
Modell Marc (shoes)
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (North Group) argued that the contested shoe RCD lacked novelty and individual character versus prior designs D1–D6, contending that all shoes share the same overall patchwork impression with contrasting elements, prominent lace fastening and similar sole design; it also alleged bad faith registration by the holder.
- ›The design holder (Rieker) argued that the contested RCD possesses the required individual character relative to the prior designs, that its degree of freedom should be assessed more narrowly for a trekking-sneaker, and that bad faith is not an available ground under the CDR.
- ›The Board excluded the four additional designs raised for the first time on appeal as expanding the subject matter of proceedings. It found bad faith is not a CDR invalidity ground. For D1, D2 and D3 (view 2), the Board conducted a detailed visual comparison and found each produced a different overall impression from the contested RCD due to differences in colour contrast, number/shape of perforations, sole design, and upper construction — rejecting the applicant's 'patchwork' equivalence argument. D4, D5, and D6 were rejected for lack of proof of disclosure.
- ›The Board concluded the contested RCD possesses individual character and novelty with respect to D1, D2 and D3 (view 2); the appeal was dismissed.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberE. Fink
- Registrarp.o. M. Chaleva
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1214/2023-3 | 2024-02-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1455/2022-3 | 2023-11-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0573/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0574/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0618/2021-3 | 2022-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0619/2021-3 | 2022-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1635/2019-3 | 2020-10-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2349/2019-3 | 2020-09-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |