DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001092258-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-07-14

R0115/2025-3

Contested design: 001092258-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(it)

Respinge il ricorso. Ordina alla richiedente la nullità di sopportare le spese sostenute dalla titolare del DUE contestato nei procedimenti di nullità e di ricorso.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

HSM Schuhmarketing GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Werksstr. 15, 45527 Hattingen, Germania

Holder · RCD owner

Crocs, Inc.via PDF extraction

United States (US)

500 Eldorado Boulevard, Building 5, Broomfield Colorado 80021, USA

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureD1

Amazon offer for Crocs Kids's Crocband Clog

ASIN B004JKMQK4 · Amazon.com · disclosed 2004-09-14

Web disclosureD2

Amazon offer for Crocs Kids's Crocband Clog

ASIN B004JKMQK4 · Amazon.ca · disclosed 2004-09-14

Web disclosureD3

Amazon offer for Crocs Crocband unisex Erwachsene Clogs

ASIN B00LA1SKLE · Amazon.de · disclosed 2007-11-30

Web disclosureD4

Amazon offer for Crocs Crocband unisex Kids' Clogs

ASIN B004JKMQK4 · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2008-10-01

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing D1-D4 reliably disclosed identical prior Crocband clogs and that numerous earlier designs also destroyed individual character.
  • The holder replied that Amazon dates were unreliable, its evidence showed Crocband launched only in August 2009, and the Article 6 claim lacked concrete identification of relevant earlier designs.
  • The Board admitted both sides' new appeal evidence, but held the Article 6 ground failed because the application never clearly identified which listed earlier designs were relied on.
  • Assuming D1-D4 had been disclosed, the Board found visible differences such as rear straps, colour bands, and decorative details, so the contested design remained new and the appeal was dismissed.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • RapporteurS. Rizzo
  • MemberC. Negro
  • RegistrarK. Zajfert

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0116/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 63(2)7
R1669/2023-32024-11-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 63(2)7
R2336/2022-32023-11-27Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 63(2)7
R1263/2021-32023-02-03Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 63(2)7
R1604/2021-32022-12-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 63(2)7
R1696/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 63(2)7
R1694/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 63(2)7
R1654/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 63(2)7