Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-07-25
R0114/2025-3
Contested design: 001626300-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's 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 holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
HSM Schuhmarketing GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Werksstr. 15, 45527 Hattingen, Germany
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Crocs, Inc.via PDF extraction
United States (US)
500 Eldorado Boulevard, Building 5, 80021 Broomfield, United States
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
Crocs Kids's Crocband Clog
ASIN B004JKMQK4 · Amazon.com · disclosed 2004-09-14
Crocs Kids's Crocband Clog
ASIN B004JKMQK4 · Amazon.ca · disclosed 2004-09-14
Crocs Kids's Crocband Clog
ASIN B00LA1SKLE · Amazon.de · disclosed 2007-11-30
Crocs Kids's Crocband Clog
ASIN B004JKMQK4 · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2008-10-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued Amazon listings D1-D4 disclosed identical Crocs clogs before 21 October 2009 and that many earlier designs also destroyed individual character.
- ›The design holder replied that Amazon availability dates and ASINs were unreliable, the Crocband launched only in August 2009, and the 111 cited designs were unspecified or different overall.
- ›The Board held the individual-character ground failed because the applicant never clearly identified and argued specific prior designs from Annex A2 for comparison.
- ›Assuming D1-D4 were disclosed, the Board found the contested design was not identical because laterality and additional visible features created more than immaterial differences, so the appeal failed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarE. Apaolaza Alm
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | 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 |