R0178/2025-3

• ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing the sock-style shoe lacked novelty and individual character over Adidas Ultra Boost Uncaged prior art and that colour, outsole, rear-view, and loop details should be discounted.
• ›The holder sought dismissal, maintained the supplementary materials were inadmissible or irrelevant, and argued the overall visual configuration, including colour, knit pattern, heel structure, sole, and loop, created a distinct impression.
• ›The Board applied the pre-1 May 2025 substantive CDR regime, admitted the existing first-instance materials, found D1 disclosed, rejected D2 as unproven, and considered D3-D11 in the applicant's favour.
• ›Comparing D1 and the Adidas variants individually with the contested design, the Board found clear differences in the upper texture, heel counter, eyelets, toe reinforcement, outsole, heel loop, and colour, so the design retained individual character and novelty.
• ›The appeal was dismissed, the first-instance rejection was confirmed, and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear costs in both the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

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

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