The dispute between Smart Luxury BV and Loro Piana1 arose in a market where knitted sneakers have become ubiquitous, often perceived as visually interchangeable. Relying on this perceived similarity, the claimant argued that Loro Piana’s “Flexy Walk” sneaker lacked individual character under Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002, and should therefore be declared invalid. To support its claim, it relied primarily on the “Ultra Boost Uncaged,” one of Adidas’ prominent knit designs.
The Board of Appeal did not begin with any stylistic assessment. It first recalled a preliminary but decisive rule: invalidity based on prior designs requires that the prior art be identified, dated and substantiated at the outset of the proceedings, pursuant to Article 28(1)(b)(v) REDUE. The Office is not expected to supplement incomplete evidence or reconstruct a missing line of reasoning. This obligation, firmly established in European case law, including T-327/20, Shower drains and T-532/18, Washing sponges, ensures procedural fairness and prevents a moving target approach to invalidity claims. Consequently, several documents presented by the claimant were excluded, particularly those lacking proper dating or supporting explanation. Only the Adidas design remained admissible for comparison.
With this procedural framework clarified, the Board returned to the key substantive test of Article 6: the overall impression produced on the informed user. Design protection does not depend on whether a designer has introduced a new category into the market. It depends on whether a product conveys a visual identity that can be distinguished within that category. In the context of athletic and fashion footwear, technical requirements such as comfort or stability may constrain certain elements, but they do not deprive designers of aesthetic freedom.
The Board noted several features of Loro Piana’s sneaker that contribute to the overall impression and are not dictated by technical necessity.
These include:
Each feature may appear modest when viewed on its own. However, design law does not protect isolated components. It protects the visual impression arising from their configuration as a whole.
On this basis, the Board concluded that the contested design produces a different overall impression for the informed user and therefore possesses individual character. As correctly noted, this assessment does not involve any inquiry into “originality,” a concept pertinent to copyright, not to design law.
The reasoning reflects established legal doctrine rather than any innovative interpretation. It offers a careful and proportionate application of settled principles, and it merits approval. The decision reinforces a balanced rule: a design need not break with existing aesthetic trends to be protected; it must simply articulate a distinctive visual presence that can be perceived as its own.
Accordingly, the ruling preserves the function of design law without expanding its scope. It protects identity where identity exists, without elevating mere stylistic variations into exclusive rights.
1 EUIPO, 10 November 2025, R 179/2025-3, Smart Luxury BV v. Loro Piana S.p.A.
