Invalidity · first instance · 2022-06-16
000115669
Contested design: 008143762-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holders' costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 008143762-0001 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, 91074 Herzogenaurach, Germany
Holder · RCD owner
Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co., Ltd.
China (CN)
No. 018, floor 8, building 6, yard 33, middle Xierqi Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100085 China
Represented by
Prior art cited (8)
soles for footwear
RCD No 001286116-0005 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
soles for footwear
RCD No 001286116-0006 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
soles for footwear
RCD No 001286116-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
soles for footwear
RCD No 001286116-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
soles for footwear
RCD No 001286116-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
PUMA NRGY Cosmic shoe shown in the applicant catalogue
applicant official catalogue
PUMA Women's NRGY Neko Cosmic shoe
www.amazon.ca · Amazon.ca
PUMA NRGY Elate training shoes
Amazon.de listing · Amazon.de · disclosed 2019-11-07
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character, relying on prior shoe and sole designs D1 to D8 and arguing the contested shoe created no different overall impression.
- ›Holders argued the whole shoe had to be assessed, the similar sole texture was technical and common, and the upper, outsole, and overall shape created a distinct impression.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of D1 to D5 and D8, but rejected D6 and D7 because the catalogue extract and Amazon.ca material did not sufficiently prove prior disclosure.
- ›Comparing each disclosed prior design individually, the Division found clear differences in the upper, outsole, and overall shoe shape, so the contested design retained individual character.
- ›The application was rejected, and the applicant was ordered to pay the holders' representation costs fixed at EUR 400.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
- MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENE
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129160 vs ROAD STAR GROUP | 2026-03-17 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000123314 vs XINMING SHOES MATERIAL CO.LTD | 2025-12-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000127175 vs GANNI A/S | 2025-12-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000126217 vs NAVIMA CALZADOS, S.L. | 2025-08-04 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000125895 vs Autumnpaper Limited | 2025-07-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000123218 vs CM LAUFSTEG MÜNCHEN INTERNATIONAL BRANDS GmbH | 2024-12-17 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000123217 vs CM LAUFSTEG MÜNCHEN INTERNATIONAL BRANDS GmbH | 2024-12-17 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000122154 vs Loro Piana S.p.A. | 2024-11-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |