Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-03-30
R0808/2021-3
Contested design: 002711093-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder’s costs in both instances.
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.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. IIvia PDF extraction
United States (US)
228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach California 90266, United States of America
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Autumnpaper Limitedvia PDF extraction
United Kingdom (GB)
5th Floor Rear Suite, Oakfield House, 35 Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath West Sussex RH16 3BW, United Kingdom
Represented by
Prior art cited (6)
Alexander McQueen oversized shoe
ballinnn.com · Ballinnn article · disclosed 2011-04-09
United Nude shoes
fashionbeans.com · FashionBeans article · disclosed 2014-06-09
Nike Roshe Run Flyknit shoe
Complex / Sneakernews articles · disclosed 2014-07-24
shoe
RCD No 2 226 027-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-05-02
shoe
RCD No 2 226 027-0007 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-05-02
Adidas Stan Smith shoe
Sneakernews / The Guardian articles · disclosed 2013-05-31
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Skechers argued that the contested shoe design lacked novelty and individual character over design D1 and prior designs D2 to D6 disclosed in online articles and RCD publications.
- ›Autumnpaper contested disclosure of D1, especially the date shown on the Ballinnn article, and maintained that the remaining prior shoe designs were visually distinct from the contested RCD.
- ›The Board held that D1 had not been validly shown as disclosed on the claimed 2011 date, accepted the Invalidity Division’s analysis for D2 to D6, and found the contested design sufficiently different in overall impression.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the invalidity application remained unsuccessful and costs were borne by Skechers.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberC. Bartos
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |