DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006272035-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-10-08

000106639

Contested design: 006272035-0001

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 006272035-0001 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

adidas AG

Germany (DE)

Postfach 1120, 91072 Herzogenaurach, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Huimei Yevia PDF extraction

China (CN)

No 1 Xinhua three-branch Rd., Chengxi St., Gutian County, Fujian 352200, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (4)

Registered RCDD1

shoe design

registered Community design No 003039619-0006

Registered RCDD2

shoe design

registered Community design No 003039619-0005

Web disclosureD3

shoe model NMD XR1 Duck Camo

Adidas shoe model NMD XR1 Duck Camo · sneakernews.com; sneakerrelease.de; nicekicks.com · disclosed 2016-09-15

Registered RCDD4

shoe design

registered Community design No 003039619-0004

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character, relying on earlier shoe designs D1 to D4 and arguing the contested design copied the NMD line.
  • Holder filed no observations, so the applicant’s disclosure and comparison arguments were undefended.
  • The Division accepted D3 as disclosed on dated sneaker websites before the filing date and treated it as the main prior design for assessment.
  • Given the designer’s broad freedom and the strong similarities in the shoe’s side structure, midsole pattern, heel tab and overall look, the contested design created no different overall impression.
  • The application was upheld, the RCD was declared invalid in full, and the holder was ordered to bear the applicant’s costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberKelly BENNETT

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
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