Invalidity · first instance · 2022-10-12
000111223
Contested design: 006884755-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity 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 0068847550001 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
Vapesol-Fábrica de Componentes Para Calçado, Unipessoal, Ldavia PDF extraction
Portugal (PT)
Devesa Escura - Revinhade, 4650373 Felgueiras, Portugal
Represented by
Pedro Gil Da Silva Pelayo de Sousa Henriques
Prior art cited (5)
sole for footwear
Community design registration No 0012861160005 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
sole for footwear
Community design registration No 0012861160006 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
sole for footwear
Community design registration No 0012861160003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
sole for footwear
Community design registration No 0012861160002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
sole for footwear
Community design registration No 0012861160001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-29
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity based on prior Puma sole designs, invoking conflict with earlier rights and, in substance, lack of novelty and individual character.
- ›The holder argued the German court decisions were not binding, some features were technically driven, the outsole had to be considered, and the contested sole remained new and distinctive.
- ›The Division held Article 25(1)(d) failed because the cited earlier designs had been disclosed before the contested design's filing date and therefore were not qualifying prior designs under that provision.
- ›Comparing the contested sole with D1 to D5, the Division found visible differences in the heel upper sole, outsole, pattern, and thickness, producing a different overall impression; the application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000114489 vs Hangzhou XiangHui International Trading Co., Ltd. | 2021-07-27 | — | Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 9 |
| 000123314 vs XINMING SHOES MATERIAL CO.LTD | 2025-12-23 | — | Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 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 |
| 000122915 vs JSP Limited | 2024-04-25 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000122914 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 |