DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009200009-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-04-04

000121478

Contested design: 009200009-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity against Registered Community design No 009200009-0002 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 009200009-0002 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Genuins Factoryvia PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Juan de la Cierva 64, Parque Empresarial, 03203 Elche, Spanien

Holder · RCD owner

Birkenstock IP GmbH

Germany (DE)

Burg Ockenfels, 53545 Linz am Rhein, Deutschland

Prior art cited (3)

Registered RCDD1

open sandal design

RCD No 008535264-0009 · EUIPO online database · disclosed 2021-05-21

Registered RCDD2

open sandal design

RCD No 008782486-0002 · EUIPO online database · disclosed 2021-12-14

Web disclosureD3

Instagram posts showing an earlier sandal design

Instagram

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity under Articles 25(1)(b), 4, 5 and 6 CDR, arguing the contested sandal design lacked novelty and individual character over D1, D2 and Instagram disclosure D3.
  • The holder argued the contested design remained new and had individual character, and that disclosure of D3 on Instagram had not been proven.
  • The Division accepted D1, D2 and D3 as disclosed, but found the contested design's contrasting strap construction and absence of a heel strap produced a different overall impression on the informed user.
  • Because the earlier designs were neither identical to nor overall similar enough to the contested design, the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded to the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload 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
000123916

vs Crocs, Inc.

2024-11-18Art 25(1)(b)027
000123935

vs Crocs, Inc.

2024-11-18Art 25(1)(b)027
000120862

vs Dongguan Zhicheng Lighting Co., Ltd.

2024-11-06Art 25(1)(b)027
000122914

vs JSP Limited

2024-04-25Art 25(1)(b)027
000122915

vs JSP Limited

2024-04-25Art 25(1)(b)027
000121459

vs Birkenstock IP GmbH

2024-04-09Art 25(1)(b)027
000121479

vs Birkenstock IP GmbH

2024-04-08Art 25(1)(b)027
000121019

vs PIKOLINOS DISEÑO,S.L.U.

2024-03-22Art 25(1)(b)027