DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007009303-0002

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-06-13

R2499/2022-3

Contested design: 007009303-0002

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear 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

Balenciaga SASvia PDF extraction

France (FR)

16-18 rue de Vaneau, 75007 Paris, Frankreich

Holder · RCD owner

Birkenstock IP GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Burg Ockenfels, 53545 Linz am Rhein, Deutschland

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosureD1

Next sandal model shown on Amazon.fr

ASIN B07B4D8QXS · Amazon.fr · disclosed 2018-03-01

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The design holder argued D1 was not reliably disclosed by the Amazon screenshot and, in any event, created a different overall impression from the contested sandal design.
  • The invalidity applicant replied that the Amazon ASIN evidence sufficiently proved disclosure and that the two fur-lined double-strap sandals gave the same overall impression.
  • The Board admitted the additional appeal-stage evidence and found the Amazon.fr listing with ASIN B07B4D8QXS reliably proved disclosure of D1 on 1 March 2018.
  • Given the broad design freedom for sandals and only minor differences in fur texture and buckle visibility, D1 destroyed individual character.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the design holder was ordered to pay the costs of both the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

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