Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-09-10
R1650/2019-3
Contested design: 001451421-0185
Outcome
1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant (invalidity applicant) bears the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings incurred by the respondent (design holder).
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)
Stockwiesenstraße 1, 8240 Thayngen, Schweiz
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
Schuhwaren (footwear)
deutsches Geschmacksmuster Nr. 40 2011 006754-0004 · Deutschland · disclosed 2012-03-16
Schuhwaren (footwear)
deutsches Geschmacksmuster Nr. 40 2011 006754-0005 · Deutschland · disclosed 2012-03-16
Schuhwaren (footwear)
deutsches Geschmacksmuster Nr. 40 2012 003211-0004 · Deutschland · disclosed 2012-09-28
Schuhwaren (footwear)
GGM Nr. 1 340 749-0004 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2012-08-30
Tanaro Modelle (undated catalogue extract)
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant (LEGERO) appealed the first-instance rejection, arguing the contested shoe design lacked novelty and individual character over earlier designs D1–D4 and undated Tanaro catalogue models, citing similarities in outsole design and upper construction.
- ›Holder (Rieker) requested dismissal as inadmissible (allegedly filed late) and argued no new substantive grounds were raised; further argued high design density in sneaker-type shoes limits the scope of earlier designs.
- ›The Board held the appeal admissible and, confirming broad designer freedom for footwear, found the contested design creates a different overall impression from each of D1–D4 on the informed user due to distinguishing features (zigzag sole, parallel zip, distinctive eyelet/stitch arrangement, central midsole notch).
- ›New prior designs introduced for the first time on appeal were excluded as inadmissible (they would enlarge the subject matter); Tanaro models were rejected for lack of dated disclosure evidence. Appeal dismissed.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1648/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 6(2), Art 28(1)(b), Art 6(1), Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 15 |
| R1649/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 6(2), Art 28(1)(b), Art 6(1), Art 4(1), Art 25(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 |