Invalidity · first instance · 2022-04-21
000117048
Contested design: 008532717-0001
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 0085327170001 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
adidas AGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Adi-Dassler-Str. 1, 91074 Herzogenaurach, Germany
Holder · RCD owner
Chengdu Kimzon Network Technology Co., Ltd
China (CN)
No.1604, 16th Floor, Unit 1, Building 1, No.19, Tianfu 3rd Street, Chengdu High-tech Zone, China (Sichuan) Pilot Free Trade Zone 610000, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Manuel De Arpe Tejero
Prior art cited (5)
part of shoes
RCD No 003761089-0033 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-05-19
part of shoes
RCD No 003761089-0032 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-05-19
shoe soles
RCD No 003330174-0004 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-08-15
ornamentation for shoe soles
RCD No 003330174-0006 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-08-15
adidas PURE Boost DPR Triple Black shoe
https://solecollector.com ; https://www.kicksonfire.com · Sole Collector and KicksOnFire launch announcements; Grailify illustrative only · disclosed 2017-11-15
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant argued the contested sports shoe lacked individual character over four earlier RCDs and the adidas PURE Boost DPR Triple Black disclosed online in 2017.
- ›Holder filed no observations in reply to the invalidity application.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of all cited earlier designs, but found the contested shoe’s upper, overall shape, and other visible features created a different overall impression despite similarities in the sole patterns.
- ›The invalidity ground under Article 25(1)(b) failed, so the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| 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 |