Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-06-22
R1243/2017-3
Contested design: 002774778-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the holder's costs.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Desestimar el recurso; 2. Ordenar que la solicitante de nulidad sufrague las costas de la titular.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
CAUCHOS LOZOYA S.L.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Hacienda “Lo Zabala” Partida Santa Agueda, s/n, 03158 Catral (Alicante), España
Represented by
Araceli Blanco Jiménez
Holder · RCD owner
HUMAT SPAIN, S.L.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Avenida del Altet, 31, Bajo, 03208 Elche, España
Represented by
Alberto Paz Espuche
Prior art cited (1)
alleged earlier sequined shoe model sold to Bluegenex and HUMAT and allegedly shown at Expo Riva Schuh
MARTINA BEIG / 9269-0070-CECINABAN · Invoices, delivery notes and alleged exhibition at Expo Riva Schuh, Riva del Garda
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that an identical sequined shoe model had been designed, manufactured and sold before the filing date, including to the holder itself, and had also been shown at the Riva del Garda trade fair.
- ›The holder challenged the authenticity and probative value of the invoices, delivery notes and photographs, arguing they did not clearly identify or objectively prove an earlier disclosed model.
- ›The Board accepted a late third-party affidavit for review but found it inconsistent, unclear and incapable of curing the evidentiary defects in the first-instance file.
- ›Because the evidence as a whole did not objectively and reliably prove disclosure of a concrete earlier shoe design before the filing date, the Board confirmed the rejection of the invalidity application and dismissed the appeal.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0016/2019-3 | 2020-03-11 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0536/2025-3 | 2025-09-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0538/2025-3 | 2025-09-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2328/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2089/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2422/2022-3 | 2024-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2336/2022-3 | 2023-11-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |