DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002848564-0005

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-04-25

000010635

Contested design: 002848564-0005

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the registered Community design No 0028485640005 is declared invalid, and the holder must 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 0028485640005. 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

Holder · RCD owner

Serra Vila Gemmavia PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

c/ Romani, 8, 08192 Sant Quirze del Valles, España

Prior art cited (5)

Web disclosureD1

article showing an espadrille design

http://www.diariodeibiza.es · Diario de Ibiza · disclosed 2014-06-23

Web disclosureD2

article showing an espadrille design

http://www.alvarodelarica.com · Álvaro de la Rica · disclosed 2014-04-24

Web disclosureD3

article showing an espadrille design

http://www.diariodeibiza.es · Diario de Ibiza · disclosed 2008-06-22

Web disclosureD4

article showing an espadrille design

http://franciscogarvi.com · Francisco Garvi, Fotógrafo · disclosed 2014-10-03

Web disclosureD5

article showing an espadrille design

http://lomejordelavidadespeina.blogspot.com.es · Lo mejor de la vida despeina · disclosed 2015-07-01

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the contested espadrille design copied traditional Ibizan espadrilles long used in Ibiza and Formentera and therefore lacked originality, novelty, and individual character.
  • The holder argued the design was new and singular because visible structural features, including lacing, tying method, band width, and band count, differed from existing models.
  • The Division accepted online disclosures D1 to D5 as prior public disclosures under Article 7 and compared the contested design first with D5 for procedural economy.
  • It found the contested design and D5 identical in the sole shape, materials, and five-band upper, so the RCD lacked novelty under Article 5 and was invalidated.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER
  • MemberÁlvaro SESMA MERINO

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esSpanishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

02.04

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000132104

vs Shenzhen Damai Network Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-05-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000127579

vs VICTORIA CARLOTA TERCEÑO JIMENEZ

2026-04-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000131324

vs Song Li

2026-03-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130815

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130769

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130811

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130812

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028
000130814

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)028