DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006625083-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-04-29

000111061

Contested design: 006625083-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant is ordered to pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Se deniega la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado nº 0066250830001. 2. Se condena al solicitante a que sufrague las costas del titular, fijadas en 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

International Shoes Garvalin S.Lvia PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Partida Pla de Sant Josep, P. 1 No. 150, 03293 Elche (Alicante), España

Holder · RCD owner

Yaya Chenvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Huangyuan number 14, Qijing village, Huangshi town, Licheng district, Putian city Fujian, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Sonia Del Valle Valiente

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDD1

baby booties, footwear, soles for footwear

RCD No 001026918-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2008-11-07

Trade mark

3D mark for shoe soles and children's footwear

Spanish trademark No M3553271 · OEPM Trademark Bulletin · disclosed 2015-03-26

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)Article 7Article 25(1)(d)Article 25(1)(e)Article 34

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity based on lack of individual character over earlier RCD D1, conflict with an earlier design right, and conflict with Spanish 3D trademark No M3553271.
  • The holder argued the contested sole design had sufficient individual character and that the earlier trademark did not create any likelihood of confusion.
  • The Division rejected Article 25(1)(d) because D1 had been disclosed before, not after, the contested filing date, found D1 validly disclosed under Article 7, but held the contested design created a different overall impression under Article 6(1).
  • The Division also found no likelihood of confusion and no use of the earlier distinctive sign under Article 25(1)(e), so the invalidity application was denied and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA
  • MemberMichele Maria BENEDETTI ALOISI

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishoriginalDownload 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
000107939

vs Shenzhenshi Lizhi Maoyi Youxian Gongsi

2020-02-04Art 25(1)(b)027
000132104

vs Shenzhen Damai Network Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-05-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)025
000127579

vs VICTORIA CARLOTA TERCEÑO JIMENEZ

2026-04-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)025
000129160

vs ROAD STAR GROUP

2026-03-17Art 25(1)(b)025
000131324

vs Song Li

2026-03-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)025
000130811

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)025
000130769

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)025
000130812

vs CYBROG PTE. LTD.

2026-02-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)025