Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-05-19
R1546/2022-3
Contested design: 008143762-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holders' costs 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 holders in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
PUMA SEvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
PUMA Way 1, 91074 Herzogenaurach, Germany
Holder · RCD owner
Trios (Dongguan) Technology Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Room 2203, No.195 Houjie Section, Guantai Road, 523960 Houjie Town, Dongguan, Guangdong, China
Represented by
Prior art cited (7)
soles for footwear
REUD No 1286116-0005 · eSearch / European Union Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
soles for footwear
REUD No 1286116-0006 · eSearch / European Union Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
soles for footwear
REUD No 1286116-0003 · eSearch / European Union Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
soles for footwear
REUD No 1286116-0002 · eSearch / European Union Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
soles for footwear
REUD No 1286116-0001 · eSearch / European Union Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
PUMA NRGY Neko Cosmic WNS training shoe
192360 · Amazon.ca
PUMA NRGY Elate Men’s Street Running shoes
ASIN B08144C312 · Amazon.de · disclosed 2019-11-07
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing the contested training shoe lacked individual character over D1 to D7, with the midsole and sole features driving the overall impression.
- ›The design holders said D6 had not been properly disclosed and that the shoe had to be compared as a whole, including its upper, heel structure and outsole features.
- ›The Board admitted the supplementary Amazon.ca evidence, found D6 disclosed, but held the informed user would consider the entire shoe and that the designer's freedom for training shoes was high.
- ›Across D1 to D7, differences in the upper, heel counter, lacing, sole layering, curvature and outsole details created distinct overall impressions, so the invalidity claim failed and the appeal was dismissed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine 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 |