Invalidity · first instance · 2021-04-22
000106739
Contested design: 002711093-0002
Outcome
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 0027110930002 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'
www.ballinnn.com · Ballinnn article · disclosed 2011-04-09
United Nude shoes
fashionbeans.com · fashionbeans.com · disclosed 2014-06-09
Nike Roshe Run Flyknit shoe
complex.com; sneakernews.com · complex.com and 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; theguardian.com · sneakernews.com and theguardian.com · disclosed 2013-05-31
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on D1 as an identical earlier disclosure and D2 to D6 as prior designs creating the same overall impression.
- ›The holder argued D1's publication date was wrong, the cited online disclosures were unreliable or obscure, and the invoked designs were materially different from the contested sneaker.
- ›The Division found the Ballinnn article insufficient to prove D1 was disclosed before filing, but accepted D2 to D6 as publicly available prior designs under Article 7(1) CDR.
- ›Comparing the contested design with D2 to D6, the Division found significant differences in perforations, upper, sole shape, and overall character, so the RCD retained individual character and the application was rejected.
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 |