Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-03-30
R0810/2021-3
Contested design: 002711093-0004
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
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 (5)
Alexander McQueen 'oversized sneaker' shown in a Ballinnn article
ballinnn.com article dated 9 April 2011 · ballinnn.com · disclosed 2011-04-09
United Nude shoe
fashionbeans.com article · fashionbeans.com · disclosed 2014-06-09
Nike Roshe Run Flyknit shoe
complex.com and sneakernews.com articles · complex.com; sneakernews.com
Casual footwear design
RCD No 2 226 027-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-05-02
Casual footwear design
RCD No 2 226 027-0007 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-05-02
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing that the Ballinnn article proved prior disclosure of D1 and that the contested shoe-sole design lacked novelty and individual character over D1 to D5.
- ›The design holder argued that the Ballinnn date was wrong, D1 had not been disclosed in 2011, and the remaining prior designs created different overall impressions.
- ›The Board accepted the design holder's additional evidence, rejected D1 as an earlier disclosure, and agreed that D2 to D5 produced different overall impressions from the contested RCD.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the rejection of the invalidity application was confirmed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberC. Bartos
- Registrarp.o. R. Vidal
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2274/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2273/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1575/2025-3 | 2026-04-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1394/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1318/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1396/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |