DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005651254-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-11-29

000122134

Contested design: 005651254-0002

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. 005651254-0002 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

Smart Luxury BVvia PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

1e Regimentsdok 2, 3433 KS Nieuwegein Netherlands

Holder · RCD owner

Loro Piana S.p.A.

Italy (IT)

Corso Rolandi, 10, I-13017 Quarona (Vercelli) Italy

Prior art cited (8)

Registered RCDD1

shoes

RCD No 003039619-0036 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-07-01

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

"LORO PIANA SPRING SUMMER 2018" article showing a shoe design

http://cameramoda.it · cameramoda.it

OtherD3⚠ rejected as evidence

undated photograph of a shoe design

OtherD4⚠ rejected as evidence

undated photograph of a shoe design

OtherD5⚠ rejected as evidence

undated photograph of a shoe design

OtherD6⚠ rejected as evidence

undated photograph of a shoe design

OtherD7⚠ rejected as evidence

undated photograph of a shoe design

OtherD8⚠ rejected as evidence

undated photograph of a shoe design

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, mainly relying on Adidas RCD D1 and additional shoe disclosures D2-D8.
  • The holder argued the alleged prior designs were inconsistently presented, several disclosures were undated or unproven, and D1 differed clearly in the relevant aesthetic features.
  • The Division admitted D1 as properly disclosed, rejected D2-D8 and later-filed materials as unproven or inadmissible, and assessed the informed user and designer freedom for footwear under Article 6.
  • It found significant differences in the upper decoration, sole structure, heel and toe reinforcement, loop detail, and visible features overall, so the contested design had individual character and novelty.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to reimburse the holder's representation costs fixed at EUR 400.

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
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