The “Tabi” Design Cases before the EUIPO: When Prior Fashion Becomes Prior Art

Background of the case

On 10 January 2025, a multiple application covering seven EU designs (Nos. 015088814-0001 to 015088814-0007) was filed with the EUIPO by the Singapore-based company Cybrog PTE. LTD. The designs related to various shoes and ankle boots featuring a distinctive “Tabi” split-toe construction.

The French company Margiela Société par actions simplifiée subsequently filed an application for a declaration of invalidity against all seven designs.

On 12 February 2026, the EUIPO Invalidity Division issued its decision, declaring all seven designs invalid.

The decision is not yet final and may be appealed until 12 April 2026.

Legal grounds for invalidity: individual character

Margiela argued that the contested designs lacked both novelty and individual character in light of its earlier “Tabi” footwear, which had been made available to the public prior to the filing date.

The Invalidity Division focused its analysis on the lack of individual character under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

An European Union Design has individual character if the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from that produced by any earlier design disclosed to the public. This assessment must take into account the degree of freedom of the designer.

In the present case, the Division examined the evidence of prior disclosure submitted by Margiela and found that similar “Tabi” shoes and ankle boots had been made publicly available on several occasions before the filing date.

A comparison of the designs led the Division to conclude that the earlier “Tabi” designs produced the same overall impression on the informed user. As a result, they constituted an obstacle to the individual character of the contested designs.

No ex officio examination: a key feature of EU design law

This case illustrates a fundamental aspect of EU design protection: the EUIPO does not examine novelty or individual character at the registration stage.

As a result, designs — including those based on traditional or pre-existing forms — are generally registered without substantive review.

However, once an application for invalidity is filed, the EUIPO conducts a thorough assessment of prior art and may invalidate the design if the legal requirements are not met.

Traditional forms as prior art

The decision also highlights how the EUIPO treats designs inspired by traditional or historical forms.

Design elements derived from widely known or culturally rooted forms (such as traditional garments, craftsmanship, or patterns) may qualify as prior art, provided they were disclosed before the filing date.

Interestingly, the EUIPO’s analysis remains strictly focused on visual comparison and public availability. It does not take into account considerations such as cultural appropriation or the origin of the design.

An increasing number of similar disputes

In recent years, design invalidity proceedings involving reinterpretations of traditional or established forms have become more frequent, particularly in the fashion and luxury sectors.

This reflects both:

the growing importance of design protection in these industries, and
the increasing reliance on existing visual vocabularies.

Legal and reputational risks for brands

The “Tabi” cases illustrate a dual risk for fashion brands.

From a legal perspective, even where a design is inspired by a long-standing or traditional form, an earlier reinterpretation (such as Margiela’s) may prevent subsequent designers from claiming exclusive rights.

From a reputational standpoint, brands may also face criticism relating to cultural appropriation, especially where traditional cultural expressions are used without acknowledgment.

These issues are currently being discussed at international level, notably within UNESCO and WIPO, in the context of the protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs).

Conclusion

The EUIPO’s decision confirms that in EU design law, what matters is not the cultural origin of a design, but its prior disclosure and the overall impression it produces.

For designers and brands, this means that inspiration — whether cultural or historical — must be approached with caution, both legally and strategically.

Our team will be happy to assist you in all intellectual property matters. At ALATIS we support your innovative and creative endeavors. To contact us: contact@alatis.eu

Anne DESMOUSSEAUX
Founding Partner

Sources: Margiela SAS Vs CybrogPTE Ltd, EUIPO Invalidity Decisions of Fébruary 12, 2026