Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-02-12
R2283/2019-3
Contested design: 003419407-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings, fixed at EUR 900.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings. 3. Fixes the costs to be paid by the invalidity applicant to the design holder for the invalidity and appeal proceedings at EUR 900.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €900
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
TBL Licensing LLCvia PDF extraction
United States (US)
C/O Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808, United States of America
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Vapesol-Fábrica de Componentes para Calçado, Unipessoal, Ldavia PDF extraction
Portugal (PT)
Devesa Escura - Revinhade, 4650-373 Felgueiras, Portugal
Represented by
Ana Cristina Ribeiro Costa
Prior art cited (1)
soles for footwear (part of -)
RCD No 1 403 844-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-02-26
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed the rejection of its invalidity application, arguing that the contested sole design lacked individual character over earlier RCD No 1 403 844-0001 and that later-invoked related designs should also be considered.
- ›The design holder argued the conflicting sole designs differed in visible tread structure, side profile and overall impression; it also challenged the late reliance on additional prior designs and invoked national Portuguese court findings and sector saturation.
- ›The Board agreed that the additional prior designs were inadmissibly late, accepted disclosure of the pleaded earlier RCD, and held that despite some common features the bottom and lateral views of the contested design created a clearly different overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the invalidity application remained rejected and the invalidity applicant was ordered to pay EUR 900 in costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| R2349/2019-3 | 2020-09-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1648/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1649/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1650/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |