Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-02-22
R1080/2022-3
Contested design: 008532717-0001
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
Dismisses the appeal; 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
adidas AGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Adi-Dassler-Str. 1, 91074 Herzogenaurach, Germany
Holder · RCD owner
Chengdu Kimzon Network Technology Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
No 1604, 16th Floor, Unit 1, Building 1, No 19, Tianfu 3rd Street, 610000 Chengdu High-tech Zone, China (Sichuan) Pilot Free Trade Zone, China
Represented by
Manuel de Arpe Tejero
Prior art cited (5)
shoe outsole / shoes [part of-]
RCD No 3761089-0033 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-05-19
shoe sole / shoes [part of-]
RCD No 3761089-0032 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-05-19
shoe sole
RCD No 3330174-0004 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-08-15
ornamentation for shoe soles
RCD No 3330174-0006 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-08-15
adidas PURE Boost DPR 'Triple Black' shoe
solecollector.com; kicksonfire.com; grailify.com
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested sports shoe appropriated earlier sole designs and produced the same overall impression as prior RCDs D1-D4 and the adidas PURE Boost DPR 'Triple Black' shoe D5.
- ›The design holder did not reply on appeal.
- ›The Board held that new invalidity grounds first raised on appeal were inadmissible and that, on the pleaded Article 6 ground, the upper and overall shoe shape dominated the informed user's perception and differentiated the contested RCD from all prior designs.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurA. Pohlmann
- MemberS. Rizzo
- Registrarp.o. E. Apaolaza Alm
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 |