Invalidity · first instance · 2024-11-18
000123935
Contested design: 001092258-0002
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity of Registered Community design No 001092258-0002 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. 001092258-0002 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, D-45527 Hattingen Germany
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Crocs, Inc.
United States (US)
500 Eldorado Boulevard, Building 5, Broomfield Colorado 80021 United States
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
Crocs Kids’s Crocband Clog
https://www.amazon.com ASIN B004JKMQK4 · Amazon.com · disclosed 2004-09-14
Crocs Kids’s Crocband Clog
https://www.amazon.ca ASIN B004JKMQK4 · Amazon.ca · disclosed 2004-09-14
Crocs Crocband unisex Erwachsene Clogs
https://www.amazon.de ASIN B00LA1SKLE · Amazon.de · disclosed 2007-11-30
Crocs crocband unisex Kids’ Clogs
https://www.amazon.co.uk ASIN B004JKMQK4 · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2008-10-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on Amazon listings D1-D4 and a list of earlier clog and shoe designs.
- ›The holder disputed the reliability of Amazon dates and argued that the applicant had not specifically explained or substantiated the individual-character attack.
- ›The Division accepted D1-D4 as prior web disclosures but found none identical to the contested design, notably because the earlier designs had a strap attached to the upper and different colour combinations.
- ›For individual character, the Division held that Annex A2 did not clearly identify and separately reproduce specific earlier designs, so those materials could not be considered disclosed prior art for the comparison.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected in full and the applicant was ordered to reimburse EUR 400 in representation costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
- MemberChiara BORACE
- MemberJessica N. LEWIS
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
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 |
| 000120862 vs Dongguan Zhicheng Lighting Co., Ltd. | 2024-11-06 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000122915 vs JSP Limited | 2024-04-25 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000122914 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 |
| 000121019 vs PIKOLINOS DISEÑO,S.L.U. | 2024-03-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |