Invalidity · first instance · 2021-09-10
000115526
Contested design: 008367742-0013
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay 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 0083677420013 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
Puma Sevia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Puma Way 1, Herzogenaurach, 91074, Germany
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 (7)
shoe sole
RCD No 0012861160005 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
shoe sole
RCD No 001286116-0006 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
shoe sole
RCD No 0012861160003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
shoe sole
RCD No 0012861160002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
shoe sole
RCD No 0012861160001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
PUMA NRGY v2 shoe
Run/Train/Fit AW /2016 · catalogue extract
PUMA NRGY shoe
Run/Train/Fit AW /2017 · catalogue extract
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character, relying on Puma NRGY prior designs D1 to D7 and arguing informed users would focus mainly on the midsole.
- ›Holder filed no observations in reply and did not contest disclosure, the applicant's characterisation of the informed user, or the cited prior designs.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of D1 to D7 but found the contested shoe had significant differences in its full appearance, especially the upper, outsole, lacing, and other visible features.
- ›Because the contested design created a different overall impression on the informed user, it retained individual character and the invalidity application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
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 |