Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-03-03
R1060/2019-3
Contested design: 001354666-0243
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder (appellant) is ordered to bear the invalidity applicant'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.
CostsHolder 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 (1)
Schuhe (shoes)
GGM Nr. 001 176 135-0250 · Blatt für Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster Nr. 2009/247 · disclosed 2009-12-03
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder (Rieker, appellant) appealed the first-instance invalidation of GGM 1 354 666-0243 (shoes), arguing that the contested RCD has individual character over the earlier GGM 1 176 135-0250 because of differences in the sole, the floral patterned textile inset, and a distinctive round stamp-like print; it also argued that high market density in footwear should make the informed user more sensitive to differences.
- ›The invalidity applicant (North Group, respondent) maintained that the contested RCD and the prior GGM produce the same overall impression, that the designer's freedom is high and the differences (patterned inset, stamp print, sole variation) are minor details that do not alter the overall impression.
- ›The Board found a high degree of designer freedom for shoes. It conducted a detailed visual comparison and found the two designs are nearly identical in the overall shape of sole, upper, tongue, perforations, reinforcements and fastening system; differences in the sole line, the floral inset pattern (discernible only on close analysis), and the stamp print (disclaimed in the earlier RCD) were held to be minor details that vanish in the overall impression.
- ›The Board concluded the contested RCD lacks individual character under Article 6 GGV and confirmed the invalidation; 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1015/2024-3 | 2024-11-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1719/2023-3 | 2024-06-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1747/2022-3 | 2024-01-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0367/2022-3 | 2023-06-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2026/2021-3 | 2022-07-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2025/2021-3 | 2022-07-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2024/2021-3 | 2022-07-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |