Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-05-18
R2790/2019-3
Contested design: 003866516-0001
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled, the invalidity application is rejected, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder’s fees and costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision and rejects the application for a declaration of invalidity; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the fees and costs incurred by the design holder.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
ABASIC S.L.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Passeo Mare Nostrum, 15, 08039 Barcelona, Spain
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
PUMA SEvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Intellectual Property Department, Attn.: Elena Willert, PUMA Way 1, 91074 Herzogenaurach, Germany
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed the first-instance invalidation, arguing that the seven registered views consistently showed one shoe design from different angles and that the alleged inconsistencies arose from perspective and flexible elements.
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the views depicted several different designs and therefore failed to meet the definition of a design under Article 3(a) CDR.
- ›The Board found no material inconsistency in the registered drawings, holding that the alleged differences could be explained by perspective, flexibility of the bow, and minor hand-drawing variation.
- ›The appeal was allowed, the contested decision annulled, and the application for a declaration of invalidity rejected.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberC. Bartos
- Registrarp.o. R. Vidal
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deGerman | human 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2028/2023-3 | 2024-04-15 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 4 |
| R0573/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 4 |
| R0574/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 4 |
| R1956/2020-3 | 2022-11-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 4 |
| R1101/2020-3 | 2022-11-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 4 |
| R1800/2021-3 | 2022-09-05 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 4 |
| R2060/2019-3 | 2022-02-01 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 4 |
| R1140/2019-3 | 2020-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 4 |