DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008367742-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-09-09

000115726

Contested design: 008367742-0004

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against registered Community design No. 008367742-0004 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. 008367742-0004 is rejected. 3. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Quanzhou Lingmu Technology Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

Rm.310, 3F, Zixin Mansion, No.216 Jinqi Rd., Donghai St., Fengze Dist. Quanzhou, Fujian 362018, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Isabelle Bertaux

Holder · RCD owner

Fujian Daocheng Electronic Commerce Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Area A, 4/F, Building G, Hongqi Group, No.164, Chongrong Street, Economic-Technology Development Zone, Quanzhou, Fujian Province, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Marinos Cleanthous

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDD1

shoes

Community design No 006848115-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2019-09-18

Web disclosureD2

JSLEAP shoes offered for sale on Amazon.de

ASIN B07RHFRV1J · Amazon.de · disclosed 2019-05-04

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 25(1)(f)Article 7Article 6(1)Article 5

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over earlier shoe designs D1 and D2, and also invoked copyright-based invalidity.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply.
  • The Division accepted D1 and the Amazon evidence for D2 as prior disclosures but found visible differences in the toe shape, material density, sole engravings, and red verbal elements.
  • The Division held that the contested design had novelty and individual character and that the copyright claim failed because the alleged work was only evidenced under Chinese law, not Member State law.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES

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), Art 25(1)(f)027
000123935

vs Crocs, Inc.

2024-11-18Art 25(1)(b)027
000123916

vs Crocs, Inc.

2024-11-18Art 25(1)(b)027
000120862

vs Dongguan Zhicheng Lighting Co., Ltd.

2024-11-06Art 25(1)(b)027
000122914

vs JSP Limited

2024-04-25Art 25(1)(b)027
000122915

vs JSP Limited

2024-04-25Art 25(1)(b)027
000121459

vs Birkenstock IP GmbH

2024-04-09Art 25(1)(b)027
000121479

vs Birkenstock IP GmbH

2024-04-08Art 25(1)(b)027