DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005832987-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-12-10

000105900

Contested design: 005832987-0004

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested Community design is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

Dem Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung wird stattgegeben. Das eingetragene Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster Nr. 0058329870004 wird für nichtig erklärt. Die Inhaberin trägt die Kosten der Antragstellerin, die auf 750 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Caprice Schuhproduktion GmbH & Co. KG

Germany (DE)

Blocksbergstr. 158, 66955 Pirmasens, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

Sino Pro Trading B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Tilburgse Weg 58, 4902 TM Oosterhout, Niederlande

Represented by

Mammel & Maser

Prior art cited (2)

Unregistered CDD1

shoe model Isabel 26

trade fair in Garda, Italy / www.exporivaschuh.it · disclosed 2017-01-07

PublicationD2

shoe model Herma

Shoes Report, 15/11/2017 · SHOES REPORT · disclosed 2017-11-15

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on earlier shoe models Isabel 26 (D1) and Herma (D2).
  • The holder filed no observations and did not contest the applicant's evidence in the invalidity proceedings.
  • The Division found D1 had been disclosed before the grace period through the holder's own pre-litigation statements and supporting materials, so further examination of D2 was unnecessary.
  • Comparing D1 with the contested design, the Division held that the only differences were immaterial details, so the designs were identical and the contested design lacked novelty.
  • The application was upheld in full, the contested design was declared invalid, and costs of EUR 750 were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload 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
000130812

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
000130815

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