DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008784797-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-12-17

000123217

Contested design: 008784797-0001

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(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 008784797-0001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Crocs Trading Company Pte. Ltd.via PDF extraction

SG

11 North Buona Vista Drive, #04-07, The Metropolis, Singapore 138589, Singapur

Holder · RCD owner

CM Laufsteg München International Brands GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

North-Carolina-Avenue 10, 66953 Pirmasens, Deutschland

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureD1

Hey Dude Mens Wally Chambray-Grey casual shoe

https://clearyshoes.com · Internet Archive Wayback Machine / clearyshoes.com · disclosed 2021-10-23

Web disclosureD2

Hey Dude Wendy Chambray Light Grey casual shoe

https://www.rods.com · Internet Archive Wayback Machine / rods.com · disclosed 2021-09-27

Web disclosureD3

Hey Dude Men's Wally Stretch - Iron casual shoe

https://travsoutfitter.com · Internet Archive Wayback Machine / travsoutfitter.com · disclosed 2020-12-05

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on three earlier Hey Dude shoe disclosures, D1 to D3.
  • The holder contested disclosure of the earlier designs and argued that multiple design differences created a different overall impression.
  • The Division accepted the Wayback Machine evidence as sufficient disclosure before 2 December 2021, while disregarding some supplemental images that could not be reliably tied to the alleged designs.
  • Despite disclosure of D1 to D3, the Division found clear differences in lacing, eyelets, air holes, sole shape and decoration, heel seams, and lining, so the contested design remained new and had individual character.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deGermanoriginalDownload 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
000122154

vs Loro Piana S.p.A.

2024-11-29Art 25(1)(b)027
000122134

vs Loro Piana S.p.A.

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