{"id":7997,"date":"2026-03-24T12:39:36","date_gmt":"2026-03-24T11:39:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/alatis.eu\/?p=7997"},"modified":"2026-03-25T11:50:44","modified_gmt":"2026-03-25T10:50:44","slug":"the-tabi-design-cases-before-the-euipo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/alatis.eu\/en\/the-tabi-design-cases-before-the-euipo\/","title":{"rendered":"The \u201cTabi\u201d Design Cases before the EUIPO: When Prior Fashion Becomes Prior Art"},"content":{"rendered":"

Background of the case<\/strong><\/h2>\n

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 \u201cTabi\u201d split-toe construction.<\/p>\n

The French company Margiela Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e subsequently filed an application for a declaration of invalidity against all seven designs.<\/p>\n

On 12 February 2026, the EUIPO Invalidity Division issued its decision, declaring all seven designs invalid.<\/p>\n

The decision is not yet final and may be appealed until 12 April 2026.<\/p>\n

Legal grounds for invalidity: individual character<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Margiela argued that the contested designs lacked both novelty and individual character in light of its earlier \u201cTabi\u201d footwear, which had been made available to the public prior to the filing date.<\/p>\n

The Invalidity Division focused its analysis on the lack of\u00a0individual character<\/strong>\u00a0under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6\/2002.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

In the present case, the Division examined the evidence of prior disclosure submitted by Margiela and found that similar \u201cTabi\u201d shoes and ankle boots had been made publicly available on several occasions before the filing date.<\/p>\n

A comparison of the designs led the Division to conclude that the earlier \u201cTabi\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

No ex officio examination: a key feature of EU design law<\/strong><\/h2>\n

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

As a result, designs \u2014 including those based on traditional or pre-existing forms \u2014 are generally registered without substantive review.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Traditional forms as prior art<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The decision also highlights how the EUIPO treats designs inspired by traditional or historical forms.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, the EUIPO\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

An increasing number of similar disputes<\/strong><\/h2>\n

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

This reflects both:<\/p>\n