DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000733282-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-07-02

000009181

Contested design: 000733282-0001

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

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0007332820001 is rejected. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Gifi Diffusion

France (FR)

Zone industrielle de la Barbière, BP 79, 47301 Villeneuve-sur-Lot, France

Represented by

Pierre Favel

Holder · RCD owner

Crocs, INC.via PDF extraction

United States (US)

7477 East Dry Creek Parkway, Niwot Colorado 80503, United States of America

Prior art cited (6)

International designD18a

wooden shoes

International registration No D051759, design No 1 · International Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2000-07-31

International designD18b

wooden shoes

International registration No D051759, design No 2 · International Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2000-07-31

International designD19

clogs

International registration No D062646 · International Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2003-03-31

Web disclosureD20

Holey Soles plastic clogs (Aqua Clogs)

http://web.archive.org · Holey Soles website via Internet Archive · disclosed 2002-12-10

Registered RCDD21

shoes

Community design registration No 0000611220001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2003-11-25

Prior useD22⚠ rejected as evidence

C&A clogs

C&A shop in Dusseldorf, Germany · disclosed 2000-09-16

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested clog lacked novelty and individual character over designs D18 to D22, saying the fur lining and heel strap differences were purely functional.
  • Holder contested disclosure of some prior designs and argued each cited design created a different overall impression, especially because none showed the contested design's furred cuff.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D18 to D21 but rejected D22 as unproven, then found the fur lining, absence of heel strap and embossed side trapezoids decisive in the overall impression.
  • The invalidity grounds under Article 25(1)(b) failed, so the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
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
000106199

vs CALZATURIFICIO MERLYN SHOES SRLS

2020-02-18Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000104179

vs Alanui S.r.l.

2020-01-21Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000105199

vs Angels GmbH

2019-11-29Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000011208

vs VAPESOL-FÁBRICA DE COMPONENTES PARA CALÇADO, UNIPESSOAL, LDA

2019-08-14Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000011237

vs Lisa Marie Fernandez, LLC

2019-07-15Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000011238

vs Lisa Marie Fernandez, LLC

2019-07-15Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000011239

vs Lisa Marie Fernandez, LLC

2019-07-15Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000011236

vs Lisa Marie Fernandez, LLC

2019-07-15Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028