Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-01-13
R0613/2025-3
Contested design: 015002573-0006
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder is ordered to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Design e morevia PDF extraction
Portugal (PT)
Rua das Casas Queimadas, nº 567 Grijó, 4415-439 Grijó - Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
But Fashion Solutions S.A.via PDF extraction
Portugal (PT)
Estrada Nacional nr3, 2380 Alcanena, Portugal
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
boots
European Union design No 4 594 802-0005 · EUIPO registration certificate · disclosed 2018-01-17
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued that the contested boot created a different overall impression and that common Chelsea-boot features and earlier market designs reduced the significance of shared elements.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that only the cited prior EU design mattered here, its disclosure was proven, and the invoked Misty110 and other designs were irrelevant to this comparison.
- ›The Board applied the substantive CDR, found the prior design disclosed, treated designer freedom for boots as high, and held that the shared boot shape, strap arrangement, sole and side panels dominated the overall impression.
- ›The Board confirmed lack of individual character over the prior design, dismissed the appeal, and ordered the design holder to bear the costs and fees of both instances.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarK. Zajfert
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 |