Invalidity · first instance · 2019-03-14

000010332

Contested design: 001176135-0250

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 001176135-0250 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

North Group Germany GmbH

Germany (DE)

Mehlbydiek 20, 24376 Kappeln, Deutschland

Represented by

Pinsent Masons Germany LLP

Holder · RCD owner

Rieker Schuh AG

Switzerland (CH)

Stockwiesenstr. 1, 8240 Thayngen, Schweiz

Represented by

Heuking Kühn Lüer Wojtek Stuttgart

Prior art cited (7)

Registered RCDD1

shoe

RCD No 000817903-0222 · eSearch database / Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2007-11-14

Registered RCDD2

shoe

RCD No 000817903-0223 · eSearch database / Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2007-11-14

Web disclosureD3

Keen Taos shoe

trailspace.com/gear/keen/taos · trailspace.com · disclosed 2006-09-21

Web disclosureD4⚠ rejected as evidence

shoe article previously known as Taos

keenfootwear.com/de · keenfootwear.com · disclosed 2015-09-24

OtherD5⚠ rejected as evidence

undated images of shoe model 'Romika Gabriele 03'

OtherD6⚠ rejected as evidence

undated image of a shoe model

OtherD7⚠ rejected as evidence

undated image of a shoe model

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, and also alleged bad faith, relying mainly on earlier shoe designs D1 to D7.
›The holder argued the contested shoe remained novel and distinctive, that the shoe market was crowded, and that the cited designs differed materially.
›The Division held bad faith is not a ground listed in Article 25(1) CDR, accepted disclosure only for D1 to D3, and disregarded D4 to D7 for lack of timely proof.
›It found the contested shoe's patchwork upper, contrasting details, and wave-shaped sole created a different overall impression from D1 to D3.
›The application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
MemberNatascha GALPERIN
MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER

Decision files

Language	Type	Source link
deGerman	original	Download 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.

Case	Date	Outcome	Shared grounds	Locarno	Score
000106199 vs CALZATURIFICIO MERLYN SHOES SRLS	2020-02-18	Invalidity application rejected	Art 25(1)(b)	02	8
000104179 vs Alanui S.r.l.	2020-01-21	Invalidity application rejected	Art 25(1)(b)	02	8
000105199 vs Angels GmbH	2019-11-29	Invalidity application rejected	Art 25(1)(b)	02	8
000011208 vs VAPESOL-FÁBRICA DE COMPONENTES PARA CALÇADO, UNIPESSOAL, LDA	2019-08-14	Invalidity application rejected	Art 25(1)(b)	02	8
000011237 vs Lisa Marie Fernandez, LLC	2019-07-15	Invalidity application rejected	Art 25(1)(b)	02	8
000011238 vs Lisa Marie Fernandez, LLC	2019-07-15	Invalidity application rejected	Art 25(1)(b)	02	8
000011239 vs Lisa Marie Fernandez, LLC	2019-07-15	Invalidity application rejected	Art 25(1)(b)	02	8
000011236 vs Lisa Marie Fernandez, LLC	2019-07-15	Invalidity application rejected	Art 25(1)(b)	02	8