DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004594802-0005

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-04-03

000120873

Contested design: 004594802-0005

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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 004594802-0005 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

But Fashion Solutions - Comércio e Indústria de Artigos em Pele, S.A.via PDF extraction

Portugal (PT)

Estrada Nacional N.º 3, N.º 1423, Lugar Do Marujo, 2380 Bugalhos – Alcanena, Portugal

Holder · RCD owner

Design e More S.A.via PDF extraction

Portugal (PT)

Rua das Casas Queimadas, nº 567 Grijó, 4415-439 Grijó - Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal

Prior art cited (3)

Prior use⚠ rejected as evidence

boots shown in the applicant's showroom

Misty-110 · applicant's showroom in Portugal

Registered RCDD1

half boots with crossed tape elements

RCD No 002898494-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-12-09

Registered RCDD2

half boots

RCD No 004020196-0005 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-11-14

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested half-boot design lacked individual character over the earlier Misty-110 boots and over prior designs D1 and D2.
  • The holder disputed public disclosure of Misty-110, challenged the reliability of the applicant's documents, and maintained that the cited designs created different overall impressions.
  • The Division found the affidavits, file metadata, invoice and showroom account insufficient to prove public disclosure of Misty-110, but accepted D1 and D2 as disclosed registered Community designs.
  • Comparing the contested design with D1 and D2, the Division held that differences in shape, outsole, laces, colours and materials produced a different overall impression, so the invalidity application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload 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.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129160

vs ROAD STAR GROUP

2026-03-17Art 25(1)(b)027
000123314

vs XINMING SHOES MATERIAL CO.LTD

2025-12-23Art 25(1)(b)027
000127175

vs GANNI A/S

2025-12-22Art 25(1)(b)027
000126217

vs NAVIMA CALZADOS, S.L.

2025-08-04Art 25(1)(b)027
000125895

vs Autumnpaper Limited

2025-07-22Art 25(1)(b)027
000123218

vs CM LAUFSTEG MÜNCHEN INTERNATIONAL BRANDS GmbH

2024-12-17Art 25(1)(b)027
000123217

vs CM LAUFSTEG MÜNCHEN INTERNATIONAL BRANDS GmbH

2024-12-17Art 25(1)(b)027
000122154

vs Loro Piana S.p.A.

2024-11-29Art 25(1)(b)027