Invalidity · first instance · 2026-06-16
000129341
Contested design: 008733133-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity against registered EU design No 008733133-0001 is rejected; the applicant bears the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(fr)
1. La demande en nullité à l'encontre du dessin ou modèle de l'UE enregistré nº 008733133-0001 est rejetée. 2. La demanderesse supporte les frais de la titulaire, fixés à 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Patricio & Mateus, Ldavia PDF extraction
Portugal (PT)
Alcanena, Portugal
Represented by
Eduardo Zamora Martínez
Holder · RCD owner
Ana Domingues Correia, LDA.via PDF extraction
Portugal (PT)
Coimbra, Portugal
Represented by
Pedro Gil Da Silva Pelayo de Sousa Henriques
Prior art cited (20)
Pantoufle/Chausson avec semelle (slipper with strap)
Decorpele P1002.3 / P1002.3C/03 / P1002.3C/07 · Decorpele catalogues 2013 and 2018, corroborated by invoices 2013–2020 · disclosed 2013-01-01
Isotoner camel slipper
https://www.trendencias.com (article dated 15/01/2021) · www.trendencias.com · disclosed 2021-01-15
UGG slipper
https://www.zalando.es (Wayback Machine 03/10/2015) · www.zalando.es · disclosed 2015-10-03
Pastor Jessica - taupe slipper / Sheppherd Jessica - taupe
https://www.zalando.es (Wayback Machine 03/10/2015 and 30/03/2016) · www.zalando.es · disclosed 2015-10-03
Pastor Jessica - marron slipper
https://www.zalando.es (Wayback Machine 03/10/2015) · www.zalando.es · disclosed 2015-10-03
UGG - beige slipper
https://www.zalando.es (Wayback Machine 03/10/2015) · www.zalando.es · disclosed 2015-10-03
Sheppherd Jessica - camel slipper
https://www.zalando.es (Wayback Machine 30/03/2016) · www.zalando.es · disclosed 2016-03-30
UGG Cozy Fancy - black slipper
https://www.zalando.es (Wayback Machine 06/11/2016) · www.zalando.es · disclosed 2016-11-06
UGG Kendyl - chestnut slipper
https://www.zalando.es (Wayback Machine 06/11/2016) · www.zalando.es · disclosed 2016-11-06
Tamaris cognac slipper
https://www.zalando.es (Wayback Machine 06/11/2016) · www.zalando.es · disclosed 2016-11-06
River Island slipper
https://www.asos.com (Wayback Machine 14/11/2017) · www.asos.com · disclosed 2017-11-14
Éraflures de Rubis slipper
https://www.mortels.com.au (Wayback Machine 25/09/2021) · www.mortels.com.au · disclosed 2021-09-25
Monica slipper
https://www.sheepskinworld.co.uk (Wayback Machine 28/09/2020) · www.sheepskinworld.co.uk · disclosed 2020-09-28
Wicklow – anthracite slipper
https://www.sheepskinworld.co.uk (Wayback Machine 28/09/2020) · www.sheepskinworld.co.uk · disclosed 2020-09-28
Wicklow – rose slipper
https://www.sheepskinworld.co.uk (Wayback Machine 28/09/2020) · www.sheepskinworld.co.uk · disclosed 2020-09-28
Tiggi slipper
https://www.sheepskinworld.co.uk (Wayback Machine 28/09/2020) · www.sheepskinworld.co.uk · disclosed 2020-09-28
Jolie slipper
https://www.emuaustralia.com (Wayback Machine 01/09/2018) · www.emuaustralia.com · disclosed 2018-09-01
Bordaleiras photos of prior slippers (no date or source information)
Magazine article showing 8 unnamed prior slipper designs
www.trendencias.com (Annexe 6, incomplete URL) · www.trendencias.com
15 screenshots of slipper designs and 5 screenshots of bead-decorated shoes from Bing search results
Microsoft Bing search screenshots (no full URLs) · Microsoft Bing
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant (Patricio & Mateus) sought invalidity of the contested fur-lined mule slipper design for lack of novelty and individual character, citing its own Decorpele model P1002.3 (D0) sold since 2013 and 16 further prior slipper designs (D1–D16) disclosed online between 2015 and 2021; alleged the holder acted in bad faith by registering a pre-existing design with added beads.
- ›Holder argued several grounds were inadmissible (bad faith, confusion); disputed probative value of invoices and catalogues; challenged Wayback Machine screenshots for non-EU sites; contended designer freedom is limited by foot-shape constraints; maintained the contested design produces a different overall impression due to its prominent bead ornament, voluminous cuff, thick ridged sole and short vamp.
- ›The Division admitted D0–D16 as validly disclosed; rejected bad faith and confusion as inadmissible invalidity grounds; found designer freedom for slippers to be broad; compared the contested design against all 17 prior designs and found decisive differences: prominent spherical bead clusters, very wide furry cuff covering more than half the vamp, sturdy ridged sole, and absence of a frontal bump — none present in any prior design.
- ›Application rejected; the contested mule slipper design has individual character and novelty over all cited prior art; applicant bears holder's costs of EUR 400.
Deciding panel
- MemberJessica N. LEWIS
- MemberEmmanuel COLLIN
- MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | 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 |
| 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 |