DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001626300-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-11-21

000123955

Contested design: 001626300-0001

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 001626300-0001 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

HSM Schuhmarketing GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Werksstr. 15, D-45527 Hattingen Germany

Represented by

Osborne Clarke

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 offer webpage

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

Web disclosureD2

Crocs Kids's crocband Clog offer webpage

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

Web disclosureD3

Crocs Kids's crocband Clog offer webpage

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

Web disclosureD4

Crocs Kids's crocband Clog offer webpage

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

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, relying on Amazon product pages D1 to D4 and a broader Annex A2 list of earlier footwear designs.
  • The holder argued the Amazon dates were unreliable and that the applicant had not specifically identified or explained any Annex A2 design producing the same overall impression.
  • The Division accepted D1 to D4 as sufficient internet disclosures under Article 7(1) CDR but found the compared designs were not identical because visible differences were not immaterial.
  • The Division disregarded Annex A2 for individual-character purposes because the applicant did not separately identify and comment on specific prior designs, so the application was rejected in full.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberChiara BORACE
  • MemberEnrico D'ERRICO

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deGermanhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianhuman 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