Invalidity · first instance · 2022-12-07
000116792
Contested design: 008615942-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application 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 0086159420001 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
Exani Sports ABvia PDF extraction
Sweden (SE)
Skaraborgsgatan 49, 53230 Skara, Sweden
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Theorema Scandinavia AB
Sweden (SE)
Västergatan 3, 289 46, Glimåkra, Sweden
Represented by
Prior art cited (10)
canisters
008480560001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2008-01-30
shoes
403056340001 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 2003-12-10
shoes
4020172012150005 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 2017-07-21
shoes
0001694200002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2004-10-19
shoes
I01328970001 · Spain · disclosed 1995-03-01
shoes
19970513 · Sweden · disclosed 1997-03-04
shoes
DM/091405-0001 · TMview · disclosed 2016-07-15
shoe shown on a website printout
website · disclosed 2020-05-15
shoe model shown in certificate
EGO FOOTWEAR CO LTD certificate dated 26/10/2021
shoe model shown in certificate
QUENZOU LEMING SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT CO., LTD certificate dated 20/10/2021
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on ten earlier sandal or shoe disclosures, arguing limited designer freedom and the same overall impression, especially versus D8.
- ›The holder said key prior art was misidentified or not properly substantiated, disputed the certificates’ credibility, invoked the grace period for late-market evidence, and argued the compared designs created different overall impressions.
- ›The Division rejected D1, D9, D10, and later-filed expanded evidence as insufficient or inadmissible, but accepted D2-D8 as disclosed prior art for assessment under Articles 6 and 7 CDR.
- ›The Division found high designer freedom for sandals and held each accepted prior design produced a different overall impression from the contested design, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000123935 vs Crocs, Inc. | 2024-11-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000123916 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 |