Invalidity · first instance · 2021-09-24
000115662
Contested design: 004160273-0015
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's fixed costs of EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 004160273-0015 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
Road Star Groupvia PDF extraction
Czechia (CZ)
Krátká 489, 25101 Nupaky, Czech Republic
Represented by
Jana Vandelikova
Prior art cited (7)
shoe sole / footwear design from the PUMA NRGY line
Community design registration No 001286116-0005 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
shoe sole / footwear design from the PUMA NRGY line
Community design registration No 001286116-0006 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
shoe sole / footwear design from the PUMA NRGY line
Community design registration No 001286116-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
shoe sole / footwear design from the PUMA NRGY line
Community design registration No 001286116-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
shoe sole / footwear design from the PUMA NRGY line
Community design registration No 001286116-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
PUMA NRGY v2 footwear shown in the applicant's catalogue
Footwear (Run/Train/Fit) A/W 2016 catalogue · Puma catalogue Footwear (Run/Train/Fit) A/W 2016 · disclosed 2016-12-31
Puma Men's Mega NRGY Knit Cross design offered for sale on Amazon
https://www.amazon.de / ASIN B0716T7WYJ · amazon.de · disclosed 2017-03-10
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character, relying on earlier Puma shoe-sole and footwear disclosures D1 to D7 and arguing that users would focus mainly on the midsole.
- ›The holder filed no observations in reply, so the applicant's disclosure evidence and design comparisons were unrebutted.
- ›The Division accepted D1 to D7 as disclosed before the contested filing date but refused to consider additional uncorroborated Puma NRGY Neko and Star images.
- ›Comparing the registered shoe as a whole, the Division found significant differences in the upper, collar, outsole and other visible features that changed the overall impression despite some sole similarities.
- ›The application was rejected because the contested RCD retained individual character, and the applicant was ordered to bear EUR 400 in costs.
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 |