Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-02-24
R1135/2024-3
Contested design: 004594802-0005
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
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
BUT FASHION SOLUTIONS - COMÉRCIO E INDÚSTRIA DE ARTIGOS EM PELE, S.A.via PDF extraction
Portugal (PT)
Estrada Nacional N.º3, N.º 1423, Lugar Do Marujo, 2380 Bugalhos - Alcanena, Portugal
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
DESIGN E MOREvia PDF extraction
Portugal (PT)
Rua das Casas Queimadas, nº 567 Grijó, 4415-439 Grijó - Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
Misty110 boots
invalidity applicant showroom in Portugal
half boots with criss-cross tape elements
RCD No 002898494-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-12-09
half boots
RCD No 004020196-0005 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-11-14
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing that the Misty110 boots were publicly disclosed in 2017 and that the contested RCD lacks individual character over Misty110, D1 and D2.
- ›The design holder replied that the Misty110 evidence was unreliable and non-public, national court findings were not binding, and the contested RCD created a different overall impression from the cited designs.
- ›The Board found the specification sheet, metadata, affidavits and invoice insufficient to prove public disclosure of Misty110, so that alleged prior design could not be considered under Article 7(1) CDR.
- ›The Board agreed that D1 and D2 were prior disclosures but held that the contested RCD produced a different overall impression, so the invalidity claim failed and the appeal was dismissed with costs against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deGerman | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | human 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2274/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2273/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1575/2025-3 | 2026-04-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1394/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1318/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1396/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |