Invalidity · first instance · 2023-02-02
000117835
Contested design: 008556815-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity against registered Community design No 008556815-0001 is rejected, and the applicant is ordered to pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Se desestima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado n.º 008556815-0001. 2. Se condena al solicitante a que sufrague las costas del titular, fijadas en 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Xianliang Linvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
Unit 605, Block 8, No. 81, North Second Ring Middle Road, Gulou District, Fuzhou City, Fujian Province, China
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Andrés Machado Sanmartín
Spain (ES)
Calle Segovia, 43 - 4º planta, puerta 3, 03195 Los Arenales del Sol (Alicante), España
Prior art cited (5)
Elewert slipper design
amazon.de ASIN B07KRNZ7J2 / B07N6NFJKX · amazon.de · disclosed 2018-11-21
Andrés Machado slipper design
amazon.de ASIN B08VFVPQQ8 / B01JS3A06I · amazon.de · disclosed 2016-08-05
BeComfy slipper design
amazon.de ASIN B091Z4TJ4H / B07WSM2K1J · amazon.de · disclosed 2019-08-20
Pantoffelmann slipper design
amazon.de ASIN B00KK57Z2Q / B09RXZ95J1 · amazon.de · disclosed 2014-05-25
Giesswein slipper design
amazon.de ASIN B001B7I97M / B001B7G1S6 · amazon.de · disclosed 2010-04-27
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, arguing the contested slipper design matched earlier slipper designs sold online.
- ›The holder argued the Amazon extracts were unreliable because listing images can be changed and the cited publication dates did not prove when the depicted designs were disclosed.
- ›The Division held internet disclosures can prove prior art, but here each Amazon extract showed conflicting ASIN identifiers, undermining when and where the relevant content was made public.
- ›Because the evidence did not prove prior disclosure under Article 7, the invalidity ground under Article 25(1)(b) based on Articles 5 and 6 failed and the application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | 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 |