Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-01-13
R0626/2025-3
Contested design: 015002573-0005
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must 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 appealed, arguing the contested boot created a different overall impression and that shared Chelsea-boot and criss-cross ribbon features were common in the sector.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that only the cited prior design mattered, earlier Misty110 arguments were irrelevant, and the similarities between the designs outweighed any minor differences.
- ›The Board held that substantive invalidity was governed by the CDR, the prior design had been properly disclosed, and the design holder's attacks on the prior design's validity were irrelevant.
- ›The Board found the shared ankle-high shape, rounded toe, criss-cross straps, studded chunky sole, and side panels decisive, so the contested EUD lacked individual character and the appeal was dismissed.
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 |