Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-10-22
R1085/2019-3
Contested design: 004014736-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings are borne by the design holder.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1. Il ricorso è respinto; 2. Le spese sostenute dalla richiedente nei procedimenti di nullità e di ricorso sono poste a carico della titolare.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Mou Ltd.via PDF extraction
United Kingdom (GB)
32 Woodstock Grove, W12 8LE Londra, Regno Unito
Represented by
Luca Guidobaldi
Holder · RCD owner
MAROS S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via P. Togliatti, 27, 50058 Signa (FI), Italia
Represented by
Matteo Mussi
Prior art cited (2)
Mou ankle-boot design
RCD No 1 123 483-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2009-05-29
Mou ankle-boot design
RCD No 1 123 483-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2009-05-29
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued that its contested ankle-boot design differed from the earlier Mou designs in stitching pattern, colour contrast, lining, boot opening and shape, and therefore retained individual character.
- ›The invalidity applicant had sought invalidity on lack of novelty and individual character over earlier Mou RCDs D1 and D2; the holder had filed no reply before the Invalidity Division but challenged the invalidity finding on appeal.
- ›The Board held that the common features of silhouette, thick border stitching, fur lining, sole and V-shaped opening dominated the overall impression, while the differences relied on by the holder were minor or visually negligible. It agreed with the first instance that the contested design lacked individual character at least over D2.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity decision stood; the holder bears the costs of both proceedings.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberM. Bra
- Registrarp.o. R. Vidal
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2443/2020-3 | 2023-01-17 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0092/2022-3 | 2022-10-25 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0093/2022-3 | 2022-10-25 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0827/2024-3 | 2025-03-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R2427/2023-3 | 2024-07-31 | Decision partially annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R1488/2022-3 | 2023-04-24 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R1489/2022-3 | 2023-04-24 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R0055/2022-3 | 2022-10-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |