Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-03-03
R0732/2024-3
Contested design: 008784797-0003
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the invalidity applicant shall bear the design holder's costs and fees in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Nichtigkeitsantragstellerin trägt die Kosten und Gebühren der Inhaberin des Geschmacksmusters im Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahren.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Crocs Trading Company Pte. Ltd.via PDF extraction
SG
11 North Buona Vista Drive, #04-07, The Metropolis, 138589 Singapur
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
CM Laufsteg München International Brands GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
North-Carolina-Avenue 10, 66953 Pirmasens, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
women's shoe model "Wendy Chambray Peach"
heydude Spring Summer 2020 catalog, model "Wendy Chambray Peach" · heydude Spring Summer 2020 catalog and Amazon.sa listing · disclosed 2020-04-15
women's shoe model "Wendy Boho White Crochet"
heydude Frühling/Sommer 2021 catalog, model "Wendy Boho White Crochet" · heydude Frühling/Sommer 2021 catalog, YouTube screenshot, and Instagram post
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing the contested shoe design lacked novelty and individual character over D1 and D2 and that the first-instance decision was insufficiently reasoned and procedurally flawed.
- ›The holder disputed disclosure, especially for D2, and argued that the embroidery, seam, collar, heel, sole, and lace differences gave the contested design a different overall impression.
- ›The Board admitted the appellant's new exhibits, found D1 disclosed before 2 December 2021, and assumed D2 disclosure in the applicant's favour without deciding that point conclusively.
- ›The Board held that the concrete visual differences outweighed the shared casual-shoe features, so D1 and D2 did not destroy novelty or individual character.
- ›The appeal was dismissed, and the invalidity applicant had to bear the holder's costs and fees in both instances.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberC. Bartos
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1214/2023-3 | 2024-02-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R2336/2022-3 | 2023-11-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1455/2022-3 | 2023-11-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R0837/2020-3 | 2023-08-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0746/2022-3 | 2023-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0574/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R0573/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |