DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008035000-0011

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-09-15

R1902/2022-3

Contested design: 008035000-0011

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Nichtigkeitsantragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahrens.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Crocs, Inc.via PDF extraction

United States (US)

13601 Via Varra, 80020 Broomfield, Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika

Represented by

Fieldfisher LLP

Holder · RCD owner

HSM Schuhmarketing GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Werksstr. 15, 45527 Hattingen, Deutschland

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosureD1

Crocs LiteRide Clog, item 204592

https://www-crocs.fr/p/literide-cloq/204592.html · www-crocs.fr

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5Article 6Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • Crocs argued that the contested clog design lacked novelty and individual character over the earlier internet-disclosed Crocs LiteRide Clog shown as D1.
  • The design holder replied that the contested RCD differed significantly from D1 in the upper, sole, heel area, strap fastening and other visible design details.
  • The Board accepted D1 as disclosed before the filing date but found that the numerous differences in the overall shape, contrasts, sole structure and decorative details produced a different overall impression on the informed user.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear the costs of both instances.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurA. Pohlmann
  • MemberC. Bartos
  • Registrarp.o. M. Chaleva

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0116/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0115/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1669/2023-32024-11-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2453/2023-32024-10-30Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0952/2021-32024-09-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2140/2023-32024-08-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2585/2023-32024-08-06Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1745/2023-32024-06-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5