DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003862564-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-03-20

000011196

Contested design: 003862564-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld; the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's fixed costs of EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 0038625640001 is declared invalid. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Steven Madden Ltd

United States (US)

52-16 Barnett Avenue, Long Island City, New York 11104, United States

Holder · RCD owner

Puma SEvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Puma Way 1, 91074 Herzogenaurach, Germany

Represented by

Maximilian Schunke

Prior art cited (5)

Web disclosureExhibit 2

Puma Women's Fenty x Puma Bow Slides

www.amazon.com; ASIN B0719L27ZY; ASIN B06XHP1KBS · Amazon · disclosed 2014-08-18

Patent

United States design patent

United States · disclosed 2013-02-26

National design

French registered design

20113900-0002 · France · disclosed 2012-03-30

National design

Turkish registration

201100006-0001 · Turkey

National design

Turkish registration

201105392-0001 · Turkey

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based mainly on Amazon disclosures of similar bow slippers available from August 2014 and other earlier designs.
  • The holder argued the Fenty Bow Slide had been disclosed first at the Paris Fashion Show in September 2016, was new and individual, and that the applicant's examples were later copies within the grace period.
  • The Division found the Amazon evidence credibly proved public disclosure before both the filing date and the Paris Fashion Show, so the earlier design qualified under Article 7 CDR.
  • Although novelty was not proven because the earlier design showed only some views, the contested design created the same overall impression as the earlier design and lacked individual character.
  • The application was upheld, the RCD was declared invalid in full, and the holder was ordered to pay EUR 750 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
  • MemberJose Antonio GARRIDO OTAOLA

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload 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