Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-09-21
R1876/2021-3
Contested design: 008367742-0013
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs incurred by the design holder 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
PUMA SEvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Intellectual Property Department, Elena Willert, PUMA Way 1, 91074 Herzogenaurach, Germany
Holder · RCD owner
Fujian Daocheng Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Area A, 4/F, Building G, Hongqi Group, No. 164, Chongrong Street, Economic-Technology Development Zone, Quanzhou, Fujian Province, People's Republic of China
Represented by
Marinos Cleanthous
Prior art cited (7)
sole for footwear
RCD No 1 286 116-0005 · Community Designs Bulletin / eSearch · disclosed 2011-07-29
sole for footwear
RCD No 1 286 116-0006 · Community Designs Bulletin / eSearch · disclosed 2011-07-29
sole for footwear
RCD No 1 286 116-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin / eSearch · disclosed 2011-07-29
sole for footwear
RCD No 1 286 116-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin / eSearch · disclosed 2011-07-29
sole for footwear
RCD No 1 286 116-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin / eSearch · disclosed 2011-07-29
PUMA shoe product shown in catalogue extract
PUMA Run/Train/Fit AW/2016 catalogue · PUMA catalogue · disclosed 2016-01-01
PUMA shoe product shown in catalogue extract
FOREVERFASTER PUMA Run/Train/Fit AW/2017 catalogue · PUMA catalogue · disclosed 2017-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested shoe design lacked individual character over five earlier sole registrations and two earlier PUMA catalogue shoes that allegedly created the same overall impression.
- ›The design holder responded that the compared designs differed materially in the textured midsole surface, upper configuration, lacing details and sole patterns, so the informed user would perceive them differently.
- ›The Board agreed that the contested shoe's dense all-over midsole texture, upper shape and undersole pattern created a clearly different overall impression from D1 to D7.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the rejection of the invalidity application was confirmed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberC. Bartos
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2336/2022-3 | 2023-11-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0746/2022-3 | 2023-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1699/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1696/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1694/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1695/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1693/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1654/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |