DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004156909-0006

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-07-08

R1372/2023-3

Contested design: 004156909-0006

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

Crocs, Inc.via PDF extraction

United States (US)

13601 Via Varra, 80020 Broomfield, Vereinigte Staaten

Represented by

Fieldfisher LLP

Holder · RCD owner

HSM Schuhmarketing GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Werksstr. 15, 45527 Hattingen, Deutschland

Represented by

Marc Barth

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCDD1

Schuhe

GGM Nr. 2 396 457-0028 · Blatt für Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster · disclosed 2014-02-04

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The design holder argued that clog design freedom was limited, the market was crowded, and the contested design created a different overall impression from D1.
  • The invalidity applicant replied that design freedom remained broad, market saturation was unproven, and the shared key features meant both designs conveyed the same overall impression.
  • The Board admitted the additional appeal evidence, found D1 disclosed before the filing date, and assessed the informed user as a relatively attentive user of clogs or similar open shoes.
  • It held that similarities in shape, perforations, fur-like trim, strap, and rivets outweighed minor differences, so the contested design lacked individual character and the appeal failed.

Deciding panel

  • ChairS. Stürmann
  • RapporteurA. Pohlmann
  • MemberC. Bartos
  • 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