Invalidity · first instance · 2024-03-22

000121019

Contested design: 008720270-0017

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity of Registered Community design No 008720270-0017 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Se desestima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del modelo comunitario registrado n.º 008720270-0017. 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

Tarke Union, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

C/Monovar, 75 P.I.de Carrús, 03206 Elche, España

Represented by

Clara Eugenia Martin Alvarez

Holder · RCD owner

Pikolinos Diseño, S.L.U.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

C/GALILEI, 2, Torrellano Parque Industrial, 03203 Elche, Alicante, España

Represented by

Padima

Prior art cited (17)

OtherDocument 1⚠ rejected as evidence

one ankle-boot design shown in expert-report photographs with metadata

APPNET Legal Services SL expert report · APPNET Legal Services SL · disclosed 2016-11-13

PublicationD2.1-D2.2

ankle boots 's.Oliver' and 'Geox'

Zapatos & Accessories, August 2011 · Zapatos & Accessories

PublicationD3.1-D3.3

ankle boots 'LEE COOPER', 'Sioux' and 'N.D.'

SPORTWEAR International, March/April 2012 · SPORTWEAR International

PublicationD4.1-D4.3

ankle boots 'Kavat', 's.Oliver' and 'Waldläfer'

Schuhmarkt, 30/01/2015 · Schuhmarkt · disclosed 2015-01-30

PublicationD5.1-D5.2

ankle boots 'Benson' and 'Barbour'

TM Textil Mitteilungen, January 2015 · TM Textil Mitteilungen

CatalogD6.1-D6.11

Alpe ankle-boot models Rocío, Mara, Campera and Dakota

Alpe 2014-2015 catalog · Alpe catalog · disclosed 2014-12-31

CatalogD7.1-D7.29

Alpe ankle-boot models Dutty, Alina, Crep, Valeria and Mara

Alpe 2016-2017 catalog · Alpe catalog · disclosed 2016-12-31

CatalogD8.1-D8.19

Alpe ankle-boot models Nicole, Naomi, Magali, Alina and Martina

Alpe 2017-2018 catalog · Alpe catalog · disclosed 2017-12-31

Web disclosureD9.1-D9.2

Marlos blog article showing two Alpe ankle boots

https://www.marlosonline.es/blog/ · Marlos blog · disclosed 2015-11-11

Web disclosureDocument 10⚠ rejected as evidence

Front Row Shoes article with six footwear designs

Front Row Shoes

Web disclosureDocument 11⚠ rejected as evidence

article with two ankle-boot designs and a user comment

disclosed 2015-11-16

Web disclosureDocument 12⚠ rejected as evidence

Mi Mundo de Color article with one shoe design

Mi Mundo de Color

Web disclosureDocument 13⚠ rejected as evidence

Beatnik article on Chelsea boots with four designs

Beatnik · disclosed 2020-09-17

Web disclosureDocument 14⚠ rejected as evidence

Bazaar article with a fashion image; no specific prior designs identified

Bazaar · disclosed 2020-11-04

Web disclosureDocument 15⚠ rejected as evidence

ASOS extract showing 16 boot images

ASOS

Web disclosureDocument 16⚠ rejected as evidence

MUJERHOY article with eight footwear designs

MUJERHOY · disclosed 2021-10-25

Web disclosureDocument 17⚠ rejected as evidence

Porronet 'CHELSEA STYLE' extract with 21 designs

porronet

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

›The applicant argued that the contested Chelsea-style ankle boot lacked novelty and individual character over numerous earlier boot disclosures because the essential Chelsea-boot features had long been known on the market.
›The holder challenged admissibility, disclosure and image quality, argued many prior designs were not fully identified or shown from enough views, and maintained the contested boot created a different overall impression.
›The Division rejected Document 1 and Documents 10-17 as insufficient disclosure evidence, but accepted D2.1-D9.2 from magazines, Alpe catalogues and the Marlos website as prior disclosures under Article 7.
›Comparing the contested design mainly with D6.10, the Division found the shared Chelsea-boot traits common in the sector and outweighed by visible differences in the tongue, elastic panel, stitching, sole, heel, metal piece and possible zipper.
›The invalidity application was rejected under Articles 6 and 5 because the contested design remained individually distinct and not identical; costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

MemberLudmila ELIŠOVÁ
MemberINETA GALUBICKE
MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENÉ

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
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