Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-09-10
R1648/2019-3
Contested design: 001457113-0405
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the invalidity applicant must bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Beschwerdeführerin trägt die der Beschwerdegegnerin entstandenen Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
LEGERO Schuhfabrik Gesellschaft mbHvia PDF extraction
Austria (AT)
Legero-United-Straße 4, 8073 Feldkirchen bei Graz, Österreich
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Rieker Schuh AGvia PDF extraction
Switzerland (CH)
Stockwiesen straße 1, 8240 Thayngen, Schweiz
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
shoe design
DE 40 2011 006754-0004 · German design register · disclosed 2012-03-16
shoe design
DE 40 2011 006754-0005 · German design register · disclosed 2012-03-16
shoe design
DE 40 2012 003211-0004 · German design register · disclosed 2012-09-28
shoe design claiming the priority of D3
RCD No 1 340 749-0004 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2012-08-30
Tanaro shoe models from a catalogue excerpt
catalogue excerpt
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the ankle-shoe design lacked novelty and individual character over earlier German and Community shoe designs D1-D4 and over additional Tanaro models.
- ›The design holder argued that the contested design differed in decisive visual features, and that further designs newly invoked on appeal could not enlarge the subject-matter of the case.
- ›The Board found the accepted earlier designs D1-D4 disclosed before filing but held that features such as the parallel zipper, pronounced perforation pattern and saw-tooth sole gave the contested design a different overall impression; the Tanaro material was not proven as a prior disclosure and, in any event, did not change the assessment.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the invalidity application remained rejected and the invalidity applicant had to pay costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberE. Fink
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1649/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 6(2), Art 28(1)(b), Art 6(1), Art 48(3), Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 17 |
| R1650/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 6(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 15 |
| R1635/2019-3 | 2020-10-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 6(2) | — | 13 |
| R2349/2019-3 | 2020-09-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 6(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 13 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b), Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1263/2021-3 | 2023-02-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R0056/2020-3 | 2021-04-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |