DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015051087-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-12-22

000127175

Contested design: 015051087-0003

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder’s costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered EU design No 0150510870003 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

Steven Madden, Ltd.via PDF extraction

United States (US)

Long Island City, United States

Holder · RCD owner

Ganni A/Svia PDF extraction

Denmark (DK)

København K, Denmark

Represented by

Bech-Bruun law firm

Prior art cited (7)

Unregistered CDD1⚠ rejected as evidence

buckle ballerina shoe

disclosed 2021-11-18

Registered RCDD2

shoes

EU design No 150306140001 · EU Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2024-01-03

Registered RCDD3

buckles

EU design No 150349370001 · EU Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2023-10-05

Registered RCDD4

buckles

EU design No 150349370002 · EU Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2023-10-05

Web disclosureD5⚠ rejected as evidence

ASOS Design fantasy studded flat sandals

Web disclosureD6⚠ rejected as evidence

post snippet showing sandals

disclosed 2020-03-25

OtherD7⚠ rejected as evidence

undated image of sandals

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant claimed the contested sandal lacked novelty over an earlier buckle ballerina design, related earlier EU designs, and additional sandal disclosures D5 to D7.
  • The holder argued D2 to D4 were its own disclosures within the 12-month grace period and that none of the cited designs was identical to the contested sandal.
  • The Division refused the late individual-character theory as a new ground, found D1 and D5 to D7 not properly proven as disclosures, and treated D2 to D4 as excluded by Article 7(2).
  • Because no novelty-destroying prior design was validly established, the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberDimitrios ANDRIANOPOULOS
  • MemberEmmanuel COLLIN

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload 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
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
000122134

vs Loro Piana S.p.A.

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