Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-03-27
R0842/2022-3
Contested design: 008470504-0001
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
PUMA SEvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
PUMA Way 1, 91074 Herzogenaurach, Germany
Holder · RCD owner
Weifang Zhonghai Shoes Industry Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
1506,15F, Block A, zhicheng World Trade Center, Software Park, Middle Weixian Rd., N.(Jiankang E.St.), Weifang High-tech Zone, Shandong Province, China
Represented by
Ákos Süle
Prior art cited (1)
figurative “formstrip” mark for footwear and protective shoes
EUTM No 8 461 469 · EUIPO trade mark register · disclosed 2010-01-31
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›PUMA argued that the contested shoe design reproduced a highly similar formstrip sign on identical goods, creating a likelihood of confusion and association with its earlier EUTM.
- ›The design holder filed no substantive reply on appeal after the technical issue over service of the appeal materials was resolved.
- ›The Board found only low visual similarity because the relevant stripe was hard to discern against the shoe, was not dominant, and differed in shape, inclination and surface pattern.
- ›With no likelihood of confusion and no proven family-of-marks claim on the pleaded basis, the appeal was dismissed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurA. Pohlmann
- MemberS. Rizzo
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(e) | — | 5 |
| R1689/2021-3 | 2022-08-31 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(e) | — | 5 |
| R1688/2021-3 | 2022-08-31 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(e) | — | 5 |
| R1663/2020-3 | 2022-08-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(e) | — | 5 |
| R1087/2021-3 | 2022-05-02 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(e) | — | 5 |
| R1553/2019-3 | 2020-05-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(e) | — | 5 |
| R2375/2018-3 | 2020-01-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(e) | — | 5 |
| R0388/2018-3 | 2019-06-06 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(e) | — | 4 |