DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002602243-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-02-09

000113104

Contested design: 002602243-0004

CDR

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 350.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 002602243-0004 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 350.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €350

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Stomacare - Entregas Médicas, Unipessoal Ldavia PDF extraction

Portugal (PT)

Rua Engenheiro Frederico Ulrich No. 3210 Bloco B, 20 números 217/218, 4470-605 Maia, Portugal

Holder · RCD owner

FLAMEshoes, s.r.o.

SK

Kružlov 292, 08604 Kružlov, Slovakia

Represented by

Ivan Belička

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDExhibit 1

sandals

RCD No 002364372-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-01-14

Registered RCDExhibit 2

footwear

RCD No 002338004-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2013-12-03

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over two earlier RCD footwear designs published before the contested filing date.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of both prior designs and found sufficient designer freedom for clogs, so minor differences could not create a distinct overall impression.
  • Comparing the contested design especially with prior design 2, the Division found highly similar shape, strap, hole pattern, arch recess, and sole markings; color and branding differences had little impact.
  • The application was upheld; the contested RCD was invalidated for lack of individual character and the holder was ordered to pay EUR 350 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberJessica LEWIS
  • MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI

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