Invalidity · first instance · 2024-12-17
000123218
Contested design: 008784797-0002
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity of Registered Community design No 008784797-0002 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. 008784797-0002 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
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
CM Laufsteg München International Brands GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
North-Carolina-Avenue 10, 66953 Pirmasens, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
"WALLY SOX GREY WHITE" shoe
ASIN B07MF93X2Q · amazon.de · disclosed 2019-01-04
"Hey Dude Wendy Chambray Light Grey" leisure shoe
https://www.rods.com via Internet Archive Wayback Machine · rods.com / Internet Archive · disclosed 2021-09-27
"Hey Dude Men's Wally Stretch - Iron" leisure shoe
https://travsoutfitter.com via Internet Archive Wayback Machine · travsoutfitter.com / Internet Archive · disclosed 2020-12-05
"WALLY KNIT LIGHT GREY" / "Hey Dude Men's Wally Knit Loafers" shoe
ASIN B07B2M7JY5 · amazon.in · disclosed 2020-03-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity under Articles 25(1)(b), 4, 5 and 6 CDR, arguing that four earlier shoe disclosures D1 to D4 destroyed novelty and individual character.
- ›The holder denied sufficient disclosure of the earlier designs and argued that the contested design differed in material, sole, lacing, openings, labels and heel construction, creating a different overall impression.
- ›The Invalidity Division accepted that D1 to D4 had been disclosed before the filing date, but found multiple visible design differences and a different overall impression despite broad designer freedom for shoes.
- ›The Division concluded that the contested design retained novelty and individual character, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129160 vs ROAD STAR GROUP | 2026-03-17 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000123314 vs XINMING SHOES MATERIAL CO.LTD | 2025-12-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000127175 vs GANNI A/S | 2025-12-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000126217 vs NAVIMA CALZADOS, S.L. | 2025-08-04 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000125895 vs Autumnpaper Limited | 2025-07-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000123217 vs CM LAUFSTEG MÜNCHEN INTERNATIONAL BRANDS GmbH | 2024-12-17 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000122154 vs Loro Piana S.p.A. | 2024-11-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |
| 000122134 vs Loro Piana S.p.A. | 2024-11-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 02 | 7 |