DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009200009-0013

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-04-08

000121479

Contested design: 009200009-0013

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is refused, and the applicant is ordered to pay the proprietor's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Refuses the application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 009200009-0013. 2. Orders the applicant to bear the costs incurred by the proprietor, which are fixed at EUR 400.

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, Spain

Holder · RCD owner

Birkenstock IP GmbH

Germany (DE)

Burg Ockenfels, 53545 Linz am Rhein, Germany

Prior art cited (4)

Registered RCDD1

sandals

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

Registered RCDD2

sandals

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

Registered RCDD3

sandals

Community design No 007550058-0013 · EUIPO online database · disclosed 2020-03-03

Web disclosureD4

Instagram posts showing sandals

Instagram posts · Instagram

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on four earlier disclosures, including three earlier Community designs and Instagram posts.
  • The proprietor argued that the contested sandal design remained novel and had individual character, and it disputed that the Instagram material proved disclosure.
  • The Division found D1 to D4 had all been disclosed before the filing date, including D4 on Instagram, because the proprietor did not rebut the evidence with sufficient proof.
  • Comparing each earlier design individually, the Division held that material, sole, strap and heel-strap differences produced a different overall impression, so neither Article 6 nor Article 5 invalidity was made out.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberALVARO SOCMERINO
  • 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
000121478

vs Birkenstock IP GmbH

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

vs PIKOLINOS DISEÑO,S.L.U.

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