DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002462929-0006

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-08-10

000011252

Contested design: 002462929-0006

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The application for a declaration of invalidity 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 002462929-0006. 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

Garvalin Calzados, S.L.

Spain (ES)

Pla Sant Josep 150, 03293 Elche (Alicante), España

Holder · RCD owner

Jemma Footwear, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Calle Primavera s/n, 03349 San Isidro (Alicante), España

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDDocumento 1

botines para bebés, calzado y suelas para calzado

RCD No 001026918-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2008-11-07

Prior useDocumentos 3, 6 y 7

Titanitos baby shoes showing the earlier sole design

retail sales in Spain and Facebook · disclosed 2012-03-30

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested shoe-sole design lacked novelty and individual character because Titanitos baby shoes with the same sole had been marketed well before filing and because the applicant's earlier RCD showed the same overall sole shape.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply and briefly attempted to surrender the contested design, but revoked that request before any register entry was made.
  • The Invalidity Division accepted the earlier disclosures proved by the registration extract, invoices, Facebook material and related evidence, but found novelty not proven because the outsole tread detail was not fully shown in the earlier design.
  • The Division held that the common sole shape, protruding toe, heel structure and lateral zones created the same overall impression on the informed user, so the contested design lacked individual character and had to be 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