DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001092258-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-11-18

000123916

Contested design: 001092258-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(it)

1. La domanda di dichiarazione di nullità del disegno o modello comunitario registrato n. 001092258-0001 è respinta. 2. La richiedente sopporta l’onere delle spese del titolare, fissate a 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

HSM Schuhmarketing GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Werksstr. 15, 45527 Hattingen Germania

Holder · RCD owner

Crocs, Inc.

United States (US)

500 Eldorado Boulevard, Building 5, Broomfield Colorado 80021 United States

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureD1

Crocs Kids’s Crocband Clog Amazon listing

ASIN B004JKMQK4 · amazon.com · disclosed 2004-09-14

Web disclosureD2

Crocs Kids’s Crocband Clog Amazon listing

ASIN B004JKMQK4 · amazon.ca · disclosed 2004-09-14

Web disclosureD3

Crocs Crocband unisex Erwachsene Clogs Amazon listing

ASIN B00LA1SKLE · amazon.de · disclosed 2007-11-30

Web disclosureD4

Crocs Crocband unisex Kids’ Clogs Amazon listing

ASIN B004JKMQK4 · amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2008-10-01

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the contested clog design lacked novelty because Crocs had already disclosed similar products through Amazon listings D1 to D4 before the 23 February 2009 filing date.
  • The holder disputed the reliability of the Amazon dates and argued the applicant had not specifically substantiated why the Annex A2 designs created the same overall impression.
  • The Division accepted the Amazon listings as sufficient proof of prior disclosure under Article 7, but found none of D1 to D4 identical to the contested design because visible differences included straps and colour combinations.
  • For individual character, the Division held Annex A2 was too generic because the applicant did not identify and comment on each earlier design separately; the invalidity application was therefore rejected in full.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
  • MemberChiara BORACE
  • MemberJessica N. LEWIS

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianoriginalDownload 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
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
000122915

vs JSP Limited

2024-04-25Art 25(1)(b)027
000122914

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
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