Invalidity · first instance · 2021-04-12
000106740
Contested design: 002711093-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder EUR 400 in costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0027110930001 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
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
Prior art cited (6)
Alexander McQueen 'oversized sneaker'
ballinnn.com article · ballinnn.com · disclosed 2011-04-09
United Nude shoes (designs D2a-D2d)
fashionbeans.com article · fashionbeans.com · disclosed 2014-06-09
Nike Roshe Run Flyknit shoe (designs D3a-D3c)
complex.com and sneakernews.com articles · complex.com; sneakernews.com · disclosed 2014-07-24
Shoes
RCD 0022260270001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-05-02
Shoes
RCD 0022260270007 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-05-02
Adidas Stan Smith shoe
sneakernews.com and theguardian.com articles · sneakernews.com; theguardian.com · disclosed 2013-05-31
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant alleged prior disclosure of Alexander McQueen's 'oversized sneaker' D1 and claimed the contested shoe lacked individual character over D1 and designs D2-D6.
- ›Holder disputed D1's publication date and reliability, argued the internet disclosures did not help the applicant, and maintained the cited designs created a different overall impression.
- ›The Division found D1 unproven because the Ballinnn article's date was undermined by later-launched models, domain-registration data, and Wayback evidence; D2-D6 were accepted as disclosed.
- ›Comparing the complete shoe designs, the Division held the contested sneaker's four asymmetric patches and other visible features produced a different overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The invalidity grounds under Article 25(1)(b) CDR failed, so the application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000123916 vs Crocs, Inc. | 2024-11-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000123935 vs Crocs, Inc. | 2024-11-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000120862 vs Dongguan Zhicheng Lighting Co., Ltd. | 2024-11-06 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000122914 vs JSP Limited | 2024-04-25 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000122915 vs JSP Limited | 2024-04-25 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000121459 vs Birkenstock IP GmbH | 2024-04-09 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000121479 vs Birkenstock IP GmbH | 2024-04-08 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000121478 vs Birkenstock IP GmbH | 2024-04-04 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |