DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005651254-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-11-29

000122154

Contested design: 005651254-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity of Registered Community design No 005651254-0001 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. 005651254-0001 è respinta. 2. Il 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, 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

shoe design shown in the article "LORO PIANA SPRING SUMMER 2018"

http://cameramoda.it · cameramoda.it · disclosed 2018-12-31

OtherD3⚠ rejected as evidence

photograph of a shoe design

OtherD4⚠ rejected as evidence

photograph of a shoe design

OtherD5⚠ rejected as evidence

photograph of a shoe design

OtherD6⚠ rejected as evidence

photograph of a shoe design

OtherD7⚠ rejected as evidence

photograph of a shoe design

OtherD8⚠ rejected as evidence

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying mainly on Adidas RCD D1 and additional shoe images and web material.
  • The holder argued that most cited materials were undated or unclear, that later-filed items expanded the case, and that D1 created a different overall impression.
  • The Division admitted only D1 as proven prior art; D2 and D3-D8 were not proven disclosed in time, and later-added designs were inadmissible because they altered the proceedings' subject matter.
  • Comparing D1 with the contested shoe, the Division found significant differences in the upper decoration, sole structure, heel and toe features, and color treatment, so the contested design remained new and individually distinctive.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

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
000122134

vs Loro Piana S.p.A.

2024-11-29Art 25(1)(b)027