Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-09-21
R1900/2021-3
Contested design: 004160273-0015
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
ROAD STAR GROUPvia PDF extraction
Czechia (CZ)
Krátká 489, 25101 Nupaky, Czech Republic
Represented by
Jana Vandelikova
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 NRGY v2 shoe shown in catalogue extract
PUMA Run/Train/Fit A/W 2016 catalogue · PUMA catalogue · disclosed 2016-01-01
Puma Men's Mega NRGY Knit Cross offered for sale on Amazon.de
Amazon ASIN B0716T7WYJ · Amazon.de product page · disclosed 2017-03-10
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the footwear design lacked individual character over five earlier sole registrations and two earlier PUMA shoes, focusing on the midsole structure and surface.
- ›The design holder replied that the contested shoe differed significantly in the patterned sidewall, low-cut upper without tongue, oversized heel counter and undersole configuration.
- ›The Board found that those differences were prominent and would not go unnoticed by the informed user, so the contested design produced a 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |