Invalidity · first instance · 2022-12-07

000116793

Contested design: 008615942-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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 008615942-0002 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

Zacco Sweden AB

Holder · RCD owner

Theorema Scandinavia AB

Sweden (SE)

Västergatan 3, SE-289 46 Glimåkra Sweden

Represented by

Bergenstråhle & Partners AB

Prior art cited (10)

Registered RCDD1⚠ rejected as evidence

canisters

Community design registration No 008480560001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2008-01-30

National designD2

shoes

403056340001 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 2003-12-10

National designD3

shoes

4020172012150005 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 2017-07-21

Registered RCDD4

shoes

Registered Community Design No 0001694200002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2004-10-19

National designD5

shoes

I01328970001 · Spanish design registration · disclosed 1995-03-01

National designD6

shoes

19970513 · Swedish design registration · disclosed 1997-03-04

International designD7

shoes

DM/091405-0001 · International design registration · disclosed 2016-07-15

Web disclosureD8

shoe shown in website printout

website · disclosed 2020-05-15

Prior useD9⚠ rejected as evidence

shoe model certified by EGO FOOTWEAR CO LTD

EGO FOOTWEAR CO LTD certificate

Prior useD10⚠ rejected as evidence

shoe model certified by QUENZOU LEMING SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT CO., LTD

QUENZOU LEMING SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT CO., LTD certificate

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)

Argument summary

›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on ten earlier designs or disclosures for sandals and shoes.
›The holder argued the cited prior art was unclear, partly inadmissible or not disclosed in time, and in any event produced different overall impressions.
›The Division accepted D2 to D8 as disclosed, but rejected D1, D9 and D10 as valid obstacles because of identification and evidentiary defects.
›Comparing each accepted prior design individually, the Division found different overall impressions and no identity, so the invalidity application failed.

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

02.04

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