Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-07-14
R0116/2025-3
Contested design: 001092258-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs incurred by the holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1 Respinge il ricorso. 2 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
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Crocs, Inc.via PDF extraction
United States (US)
500 Eldorado Boulevard, Building 5, Broomfield Colorado 80021, USA
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
Crocs Kids's Crocband Clog
https://www.amazon.com / ASIN B004JKMQK4 · Amazon.com · disclosed 2004-09-14
Crocs Kids's Crocband Clog
https://www.amazon.ca / ASIN B004JKMQK4 · Amazon.ca · disclosed 2004-09-14
Crocs Crocband unisex Erwachsene Clogs
https://www.amazon.de / ASIN B00LA1SKLE · Amazon.de · disclosed 2007-11-30
Crocs Crocband unisex Kids' Clogs
https://www.amazon.co.uk / ASIN B004JKMQK4 · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2008-10-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed the rejection of its nullity action, arguing that Amazon listings D1-D4 reliably proved earlier disclosure and that the cited clog designs deprived the contested design of novelty and individual character.
- ›The holder replied that Amazon availability dates were unreliable and submitted witness statements, screenshots, and a 27 August 2009 press release to show the Crocband model was launched only after the filing date; it also said Annex A2 never identified specific prior designs.
- ›The Board admitted the new appeal evidence but confirmed that the Article 6 ground failed because the applicant had not clearly identified and reproduced the earlier designs relied on in Annex A2 and could not cure that defect on appeal.
- ›Assuming D1-D4 had been disclosed before filing, the Board held that their rear straps, colour combinations, and decorative details were not irrelevant differences, so the contested design remained novel; the appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the invalidity applicant.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarK. Zajfert
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R2336/2022-3 | 2023-11-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R1263/2021-3 | 2023-02-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R1604/2021-3 | 2022-12-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R1696/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R1694/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R1654/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |