Invalidity · first instance · 2025-07-22
000125895
Contested design: 002711093-0004
Outcome
The invalidity application against registered EU design No 002711093-0004 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's fixed costs of EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered EU design No 002711093-0004 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
Primadonna S.P.A.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Bitonto (BA), Italy
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Autumnpaper Limited
United Kingdom (GB)
Haywards Heath, United Kingdom
Represented by
Prior art cited (10)
outsole cover
US D680,720 S · United States Patent Office patent database · disclosed 2013-04-30
outsole cover
US D680,727 S · United States Patent Office patent database · disclosed 2013-04-30
Soles for footwear, Footwear
EU design registration No 002239657-0010 · EU Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2013-05-29
Shoes (part of -), Shoes
EU design registration No 000293451-0011 · EU Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2005-04-19
Footwear
EU design registration No 001569559-0005 · EU Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2009-09-14
Shoes (part of -)
EU design registration No 002219956-0003 · EU Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2013-05-28
Turkish design registration No 2003 03763 · Turkish Bulletin · disclosed 2004-08-01
Turkish design registration No 2008 01823 · Turkish Bulletin · disclosed 2008-07-01
Turkish design registration No 2012 01219 · Turkish Bulletin · disclosed 2012-05-01
Turkish design registration No 2007 04717 · Turkish Bulletin · disclosed 2007-12-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant claimed lack of individual character over D1-D10 and argued the shoe welt had to be excluded under Article 8(2).
- ›The holder denied that Article 8(2) applied, disputed the applicant's reading of Article 6, and argued the oversized sole created a distinct overall impression.
- ›The Division found no evidence that the welt had to be reproduced in exact form and dimensions for mechanical interconnection, so the whole design remained protected.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of D1-D10 but found each prior design created a different overall impression on the informed user, given the contested sole's oversized shape and other visible differences.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
| 000123218 vs CM LAUFSTEG MÜNCHEN INTERNATIONAL BRANDS GmbH | 2024-12-17 | — | 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 |