DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002711093-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-04-12

000106719

Contested design: 002711093-0004

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0027110930004 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. IIvia PDF extraction

United States (US)

228 Manhattan Beach Blvd, 90266 Manhattan Beach, California, United States of America

Represented by

D Young & Co LLP

Holder · RCD owner

Autumnpaper Limited

United Kingdom (GB)

5th Floor Rear Suite, Oakfield House, 35 Perrymount Road, RH16 3BW Haywards Heath, West Sussex, United Kingdom

Represented by

Mishcon de Reya LLP

Prior art cited (5)

Web disclosureD1⚠ rejected as evidence

Alexander McQueen oversized sneaker

www.ballinnn.com · ballinnn.com · disclosed 2011-04-09

Web disclosureD2

United Nude shoes

fashionbeans.com · fashionbeans.com · disclosed 2014-06-09

Web disclosureD3

Nike Roshe Run Flyknit shoe

complex.com; sneakernews.com · disclosed 2014-07-24

Registered RCDD4

shoes

RCD 0022260270001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-05-02

Registered RCDD5

shoes

RCD 0022260270007 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-05-02

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested shoe-sole design lacked individual character over D1 and designs D2 to D5 disclosed before the filing date.
  • Holder contested D1's publication date and disclosure, argued the cited internet evidence was unreliable or obscure, and said the earlier soles created different overall impressions.
  • The Division found the Ballinnn article unreliable and uncorroborated, so D1 was not proven disclosed, but accepted D2 to D5 as publicly available before filing.
  • Comparing only the visible soles, significant differences in the toe step, welt, thickness, profile and heel outweighed similarities, so the RCD retained individual character and invalidity was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • 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
000129160

vs ROAD STAR GROUP

2026-03-17Art 25(1)(b)027
000123314

vs XINMING SHOES MATERIAL CO.LTD

2025-12-23Art 25(1)(b)027
000127175

vs GANNI A/S

2025-12-22Art 25(1)(b)027
000126217

vs NAVIMA CALZADOS, S.L.

2025-08-04Art 25(1)(b)027
000125895

vs Autumnpaper Limited

2025-07-22Art 25(1)(b)027
000123218

vs CM LAUFSTEG MÜNCHEN INTERNATIONAL BRANDS GmbH

2024-12-17Art 25(1)(b)027
000123217

vs CM LAUFSTEG MÜNCHEN INTERNATIONAL BRANDS GmbH

2024-12-17Art 25(1)(b)027
000122134

vs Loro Piana S.p.A.

2024-11-29Art 25(1)(b)027