Invalidity · first instance · 2019-07-26
000105279
Contested design: 003175587-0001
Outcome
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 003175587-0001 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
Puma SE
Germany (DE)
Puma Way 1, 91074 Herzogenaurach, Germany
Holder · RCD owner
Carilex - Fabrico de Componentes para Calçado, Lda
Portugal (PT)
Lugar da Devesa Escura – Barrosas, 4610 Felgueiras, Portugal
Represented by
David Cardoso
Prior art cited (5)
PUMA by Rihanna Creeper shoe design
RCD No 003320555-0002 · EUIPO database · disclosed 2016-08-05
PUMA by Rihanna Creeper shoe design
RCD No 003320555-0001 · EUIPO database · disclosed 2016-08-05
black and white PUMA by Rihanna Creeper shoe showing the sole design
www.puma-catchup.com · puma-catchup.com · disclosed 2015-11-08
Brendan Dunne article showing the same Creeper shoe design
www.solecollector.com · solecollector.com · disclosed 2015-09-14
Vanity Fair article showing the same Creeper shoe design
How Rihanna’s Puma Creeper Became the Year’s Must-Have Shoe · vanityfair.com · disclosed 2016-05-25
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity based on prior design rights and argued the contested shoe sole lacked novelty and individual character over the earlier PUMA by Rihanna Creeper design.
- ›Holder filed no response to the invalidity application and did not contest disclosure, novelty, individual character, or the evidence submitted.
- ›The Division rejected the registered RCDs cited under Article 25(1)(d) as prior art because their publication dates post-dated the contested RCD filing date.
- ›The Division found the web evidence credibly disclosed the earlier Creeper sole before filing and that the differences in colour, outsole pattern, and inner cavity did not change the overall impression.
- ›The application was upheld under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6, the contested RCD was declared invalid, and no further ground required analysis.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberKelly BENNETT
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000132104 vs Shenzhen Damai Network Technology Co., Ltd. | 2026-05-21 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000127579 vs VICTORIA CARLOTA TERCEÑO JIMENEZ | 2026-04-15 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000131324 vs Song Li | 2026-03-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000130815 vs CYBROG PTE. LTD. | 2026-02-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000130811 vs CYBROG PTE. LTD. | 2026-02-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000130769 vs CYBROG PTE. LTD. | 2026-02-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000130812 vs CYBROG PTE. LTD. | 2026-02-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |
| 000130814 vs CYBROG PTE. LTD. | 2026-02-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 8 |