Invalidity · first instance · 2018-04-24
000010632
Contested design: 002618413-0002
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld; the contested registered Community design is declared invalid, and the holder is ordered to pay the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
Se estima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad. Se declara nulo el dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado nº 0026184130002. Se condena al titular a que sufrague las costas del solicitante, que se fijan en 750 EUR.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Consell Insular d’Eivissa
Spain (ES)
Avda. España, 49, 07800 Ibiza, España
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Serra Vila Gemmavia PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
c/ Romani, 8, 08192 Sant Quirze del Valles, España
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
Article "Cursos que preservan la tradición" showing espadrilles made in a course on traditional footwear
http://www.diariodeibiza.es · Diario de Ibiza · disclosed 2014-06-23
Article "El hombre de la alpargata" showing an espadrille design
http://www.alvarodelarica.com · Álvaro de la Rica weblog · disclosed 2014-04-24
Article "Nueva promoción de artesanos de artículos tradicionales" showing espadrilles made in a course on traditional footwear
http://www.diariodeibiza.es · Diario de Ibiza · disclosed 2008-06-22
Article "Espardeñas – Insotel – Ibiza" showing an espadrille design
http://franciscogarvi.com · Francisco Garvi weblog · disclosed 2014-10-03
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity because the contested espadrille design allegedly copied traditional Ibizan espadrilles already long present on the market and lacked novelty and individual character.
- ›The holder argued the design was new and had individual character because its external structure, braiding, fastening, width, and number of bands created a different overall impression.
- ›The Division accepted D1 to D4 as prior Internet disclosures before the filing date, disregarded later or insufficient materials, and used D2 as the main comparator.
- ›It found only minor differences from D2 and held that the contested design produced no different overall impression on the informed user, so the RCD was invalidated and costs were awarded against the holder.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER
- MemberÁlvaro SESMA MERINO
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esSpanish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000132104 vs Shenzhen Damai Network Technology Co., Ltd. | 2026-05-21 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000127579 vs VICTORIA CARLOTA TERCEÑO JIMENEZ | 2026-04-15 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000131324 vs Song Li | 2026-03-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000130815 vs CYBROG PTE. LTD. | 2026-02-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000130769 vs CYBROG PTE. LTD. | 2026-02-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000130811 vs CYBROG PTE. LTD. | 2026-02-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000130812 vs CYBROG PTE. LTD. | 2026-02-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000130814 vs CYBROG PTE. LTD. | 2026-02-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |