DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007801725-0007

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-04-18

R2538/2022-3

Contested design: 007801725-0007

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder bears the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

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

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Penta Shoes, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Polígono Cachapet, P-77, 03330 Crevillente (Alicante), Spanien

Holder · RCD owner

Birkenstock IP GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Burg Ockenfels, 53545 Linz am Rhein, Deutschland

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosureD1

Eddie Bauer double-strap platform sandal

ASIN B000X7FZJQK · Amazon.de · disclosed 2015-07-06

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The holder argued D1 was not reliably disclosed before the filing date and, in any event, created a different overall impression from the contested design.
  • The invalidity applicant replied that the Amazon ASIN evidence was credible, was reinforced by additional Eddie Bauer web extracts, and showed the same sandal design.
  • The Board admitted the additional appeal-stage evidence and found no concrete indication that the Amazon listing or date had been manipulated.
  • The Board held that D1 had been publicly disclosed by 6 July 2015 and that the minor sole differences did not alter the overall impression on the informed user.
  • The appeal was dismissed, so the invalidity decision stood and the holder was ordered to pay the costs of both instances.

Deciding panel

  • ChairS. Stürmann
  • RapporteurA. Pohlmann
  • MemberE. Fink
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

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
R0181/2025-32025-05-27Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0827/2024-32025-03-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1336/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0797/2024-32025-01-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1123/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1125/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1124/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1015/2024-32024-11-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5