Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-03-24
R0877/2020-3
Contested design: 004063618-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must bear the model holder's costs.
Show verbatim operative text(fr)
1. Le recours est rejeté ; 2. La demanderesse en nullité devra supporter les frais engagés par le titulaire du modèle.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
DIVISIÓN ANATÓMICOS, SAvia PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
C/ Persianas, 8., 03630 Alicante / Sax, Espagne
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Olivier Combyvia PDF extraction
France (FR)
22, rue des Madeleines, 69240 THIZY-LES-BOURGS, France
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
shoe design patent
US D 513 861 S · US design patent publication · disclosed 2006-01-31
Skechers Women's Go Walk Joy Slip-On Trainers
Amazon.de ASIN B 076 WZ8 TYB · Amazon Germany · disclosed 2017-04-28
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed the rejection of its invalidity action, arguing that the contested slip-on shoe design lacked novelty and individual character over prior designs D1 and D2, especially D2, and that the holder's grace-period reliance on an enveloppe Soleau and early commercial documents was irrelevant.
- ›The holder argued that D2 was not a relevant prior design because the contested shoe had already been created and disclosed within the grace period, and that the contested design differed in the upper shape, materials, mesh, sole relief and contours.
- ›The Board accepted disclosure of both D1 and D2 but found that the contested shoe remained sufficiently different, especially in the upper, contours, materials and sole treatment, so that it produced a different overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the first-instance rejection stood and the invalidity applicant had to bear costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurM. Bra
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0952/2021-3 | 2024-09-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2140/2023-3 | 2024-08-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2585/2023-3 | 2024-08-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1745/2023-3 | 2024-06-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |