Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-11-10
R0179/2025-3
Contested design: 005651254-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant is ordered to 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
Smart Luxury BVvia PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
1e Regimentsdok 2, 3433 KS Nieuwegein, Paesi Bassi
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Loro Piana S.p.A.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Corso Rolandi, 10, 13017 Quarona (VC), Italia
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
shoe design for Adidas Ultra Boost Uncaged (scarpe, parte di -)
RCD No 3 039 619-0036 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-07-01
"LORO PIANA SPRING SUMMER 2018" article showing a shoe design allegedly pre-disclosing the contested design
http://cameramoda.it · cameramoda.it
various comparison images and supplemental extracts concerning the Adidas Ultra Boost Uncaged shoe model in different views and colours
Adidas "Ultra Boost Uncaged" comparison images and internet extracts · comparison tables and internet extracts
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing that the contested sock-like shoe design lacked novelty and individual character over Adidas Ultra Boost Uncaged prior designs and an alleged 2017 pre-disclosure by the holder.
- ›The holder replied that most cited materials were not properly identified or reliably dated, and that D1 and the Adidas shoe materials differed in the relevant visual features from the contested design.
- ›The Board held D1 was properly invoked and disclosed, D2 lacked proof of disclosure, the design-heritage annex did not validly identify further prior designs, and later materials were admissible only as supplements.
- ›Comparing the contested design with D1 and the Adidas Ultra Boost Uncaged variants, the Board found significant differences in the upper texture, heel counter, eyelets, toe reinforcement, outsole, pull tab and colour contrasts.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the contested design retained individual character and novelty, and the invalidity applicant had to bear the costs.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |