DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006427399-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-05-21

000109223

Contested design: 006427399-0002

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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

Show verbatim operative text(fr)

1. La demande en nullité est accueillie. 2. Ledessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré no 006427399-0002 est déclaré nul. 3. La titulaire supporte les frais de la demanderesse, fixés à 750 EUR.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Crocs, Inc.via PDF extraction

United States (US)

7477 East Dry Creek Parkway, Niwot, Colorado 80503, États-Unis d’Amérique

Represented by

Filedfisher Ireland

Holder · RCD owner

Jia Weivia PDF extraction

Czechia (CZ)

Tiskařská 599/12, 10800 Praha 10, République tchèque

Prior art cited (3)

Registered RCDD1

clog shoe design

002602243-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-01-05

Registered RCDD2

clog shoe design

002981431-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-02-22

Registered RCDD3

clog shoe design

004540557-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-12-20

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity based on three earlier RCDs, arguing the contested clog design lacked novelty and, in the alternative, individual character.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found D1 had been validly disclosed and that the contested design was not identical to it, so the novelty claim failed.
  • Because the shared arbitrary features dominated the overall impression and designer freedom was high, the contested design lacked individual character and was declared invalid.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRebecca Santana Davies
  • MemberALVARO SESMA MERINO

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