Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) 2 September 2026

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)

2 September 2026 ( * )

( EU design – Invalidity proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Design representing a footwear sole – Prior EU designs – Grounds for invalidity – Individual character – Different overall impression – Degree of attention of an informed user – Degree of freedom of the designer – Article 25(1)(b) and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in the version prior to Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 )

In Case T‑376/25,

Puma SE, established in Herzogenaurach (Germany), represented by M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by E. Nicolás Gómez, acting as Agent,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being

Sir Safety System SpA, established in Assisi (Italy), represented by C. Raßmann, M. Süther and A. Mathis, lawyers,

THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber),

composed of K. Kecsmár, President, U. Öberg (Rapporteur) and L. Truchot, Judges,

Registrar: J. Čuboň, Administrator,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

further to the hearing on 14 April 2026,

gives the following

Judgment

1 By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Puma SE, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 March 2025 (Case R 1137/2024-3) (‘the contested decision’).

Background to the dispute

2 On 18 June 2021, the intervener, Sir Safety System SpA, obtained from the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) the international registration designating the European Union in respect of design No DM/214918. On 28 January 2022, the applicant lodged an application with EUIPO for a declaration of invalidity of the effects of the international registration of the contested design, which is represented in the following views:

3 The product in which the design, in respect of which a declaration of invalidity was sought, is intended to be applied was in Class 02.04 of the Locarno Agreement of 8 October 1968 Establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs, as amended, and corresponded to the following description: ‘footwear sole’.

4 The ground relied on in support of the application for a declaration of invalidity was that set out in Article 106f of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on European Union designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1), in the version preceding the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 amending Regulation No 6/2002 and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2246/2002 (OJ L, 2024/2822), read in conjunction with Articles 25(1)(b) and 4(1) of Regulation No 6/2002.

5 The application for a declaration of invalidity was based on lack of novelty, within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version, and of individual character, within the meaning of Article 6 of that regulation, of the contested design, in the light, inter alia, of the following prior EU designs and products:

– prior design No 5191004-0020 (‘prior design D1’):

– prior design No 6266169-0001 (‘prior design D2’):

– prior design No 4812501-0001 (‘prior design D3’):

– prior design No 4812501-0006 (‘prior design D4’):

– prior design No 6266169-0002 (‘prior design D5’):

– prior design No 4812501-0002 (‘prior design D6’):

– prior design No 3522580-0024 (‘prior design D7’):

– prior design No 3522580-0031 (‘prior design D8’):

– prior design No 5191004-0016 (‘prior design D9’):

– prior design No 6199527-0001 (‘prior design D10’):

– prior design No 6199527-0003 (‘prior design D11’):

– the product ‘Puma Men’s Hybrid Fuego Running Shoes’, sold on Amazon and bearing the reference ASIN B07KG16K8R (‘prior design D12’):

– the product ‘Puma Men’s Hybrid NX Caution Running Shoes’, sold on Amazon and bearing the reference ASIN B07DC16TVJ (‘prior design D13’):

– the product ‘Puma Men’s Hybrid NX Light Running Shoes’, sold on Amazon and bearing the reference ASIN B07DCK2FZQ (‘prior design D14’):

– the product ‘Puma Hybrid NX Rave Men’s Running Shoes – Black’, sold on Amazon and bearing the reference ASIN B07TP4K3Q1 (‘prior design D15’):

– the product ‘Puma Women’s Hybrid NX Tz Wn Running Shoes’, sold on Amazon and bearing the reference ASIN B07DBZSCD3 (‘prior design D16’):

– the product ‘Puma Men’s Hybrid NX trainers’, sold on Amazon and bearing the reference ASIN B07KWW8MZC (‘prior design D17’):

– the product ‘Puma Women’s Hybrid Rocket Aero WNS Running Shoes’, sold on Amazon and bearing the reference ASIN B07KG6MQ5S (‘prior design D18’):

– the product ‘Puma Men’s Hybrid Runner Running Shoes’, sold on Amazon and bearing the reference ASIN B07DBZ6SQ5 (‘prior design D19’):

– the product ‘Puma Men’s Hybrid Sky Rave Running Shoes, Black’, sold on Amazon and bearing the reference ASIN B07KYDV97N (‘prior design D20’);

– the product ‘Hybrid Sky Lights’, sold on Amazon and bearing the reference ASIN B07KFZQYCD (‘prior design D21’):

– the product ‘Puma Men’s Hybrid Sky Rave Training Casual Shoes, Black’, sold on Amazon and bearing the reference ASIN B0846MTHF9 (‘prior design D22’):

– the product ‘Puma Women’s Hybrid Sky Trainers’, sold on Amazon and bearing the reference ASIN B07MTHPFDK (‘prior design D23’):

– the product ‘Puma Future Orbiter BALR Men’s trainer’, sold on Amazon and bearing the reference ASIN B07ZF5ZM4Z (‘prior design D24’):

– the product ‘Puma Men’s Hybrid Runner Fusefit Running Shoes’, sold on Amazon and bearing the reference ASIN B07D9YSDLK (‘prior design D25’):

– the product ‘Puma Men’s Hybrid Rocket Netfit Running Shoes’, sold on Amazon and bearing the reference ASIN B07D9ZZLFV (‘prior design D26’):

– the product ‘Puma Men’s Scuderia Ferrari Speed Hybrid Trainers’, sold on Amazon and bearing the reference ASIN B07G1FRSKS (‘prior design D27’):

– the product ‘Puma Men’s Speed 600 2 Trainers’, sold on Amazon and bearing the reference ASIN B07S9RTQWP (‘prior design D28’):

– the product ‘Puma Women’s Speed Orbiter WNS Running Shoes’, sold on Amazon and bearing the reference ASIN B0814541ZL (‘prior design D29’):

– the product ‘Puma Men’s Hybrid Astro Running Shoe’, sold on Amazon and bearing the reference ASIN B07KFZR1F1 (‘prior design D30’):

6 On 5 April 2024, the Invalidity Division dismissed the application for a declaration of invalidity of the contested design on the ground that it had individual character and was new in relation to the prior designs.

7 On 4 June 2024, the applicant filed an appeal with EUIPO against the decision of the Invalidity Division.

8 By the contested decision, the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the overall impression produced by the contested design was different from that of the prior designs relied on in support of the application for a declaration of invalidity. Accordingly, the Board of Appeal upheld the decision of the Invalidity Division, concluding that the contested design had individual character, within the meaning of Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, and was also new, within the meaning of Article 5(1)(b) of that regulation.

Forms of order sought

9 The applicant claims that the Court should:

– annul the contested decision and declare the contested design invalid;

– order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

10 EUIPO contends that the Court should:

– dismiss the action;

– order the applicant to pay the costs in the event that a hearing is convened.

11 The intervener contends that the Court should:

– dismiss the action;

– order the applicant to pay the costs.

12 At the hearing, the intervener waived its right to challenge the admissibility of the action and paragraph 25 of the contested decision concerning the disclosure of the prior designs, formal note of which was taken in the minutes of the hearing.

Law

Second part of the applicant’s first head of claim

13 By the second part of the first head of claim, the applicant requests that the Court declare the contested design to be invalid.

14 In that respect, it must held that, by that request, the applicant made a request for alteration, pursuant to Article 61(3) of Regulation No 6/2002, asking the Court to adopt the decision which the Board of Appeal should have taken (see judgments of 8 May 2024, Puma v EUIPO – Road Star Group (Footwear) , T‑757/22, EU:T:2024:291, paragraph 15 and the case-law cited, and of 8 May 2024, Puma v EUIPO – Fujian Daocheng Electronic Commerce (Footwear) , T‑758/22, EU:T:2024:292, paragraph 12 and the case-law cited).

Substance

15 The applicant, in essence, puts forward a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version, read in conjunction with Article 4(1) and Article 6(1)(b) of that regulation, in that the Board of Appeal, by attaching too much importance to minor differences between the designs at issue, wrongly concluded that they produced different overall impressions and therefore that the contested design had individual character.

16 Under Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version, an EU design may be declared invalid if it does not fulfil the requirements of Articles 4 to 9 of that regulation, in its earlier version, and, inter alia, those of novelty and individual character.

17 Under Article 4(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version, a design is to be protected only to the extent that it is new and has individual character.

18 According to Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version, a registered EU design is to be considered to have individual character if the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by any design which has been made available to the public before the date of filing the application for registration or, if priority is claimed, before the date of priority. Article 6(2) of that regulation states that, in assessing individual character of a design, account is to be taken of the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design.

19 According to settled case-law, the assessment of the individual character of an EU design is carried out, in essence, in four stages. That examination consists in deciding upon, first, the sector to which the products in which the design is intended to be incorporated or to which it is intended to be applied belong; second, the informed user of those products in accordance with their purpose and, with reference to that informed user, the degree of awareness of the prior art and the level of attention to the similarities and the differences in the comparison of the designs; third, the designer’s degree of freedom in developing his or her design, the influence of which on individual character is in inverse proportion; and, fourth, taking that degree of freedom into account, the outcome of the comparison, direct if possible, of the overall impressions produced on the informed user by the contested design and by any earlier design which has been made available to the public, taken individually (see judgment of 13 June 2019, Visi/one v EUIPO – EasyFix (Display holder for vehicles) , T‑74/18, EU:T:2019:417, paragraph 66 and the case-law cited).

20 While the first stage of the analysis, namely the determination of the sector of the products in which the design is intended to be incorporated or to which it is intended to be applied, is not made expressly clear by the wording of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version, that stage is in actual fact a necessary precondition for defining the informed user and the freedom of the designer, those latter concepts being expressly referred to in Article 6(1) and (2) of Regulation No 6/2002. In that regard, the identification of the product covered by the design at issue enables the informed user and the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design to be determined (see judgment of 10 November 2021, Eternit v EUIPO – Eternit Österreich (Building panels) , T‑193/20, EU:T:2021:782, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).

21 It is in the light of those principles that it is appropriate to assess whether, in the present case, the Board of Appeal was correct to find that the contested design had individual character.

The sector concerned

22 In paragraphs 27 and 29 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal noted that the goods incorporating the contested design were footwear soles, given that that design had been registered with the indication ‘footwear sole’ and that that corresponded to its representation.

23 In response to the intervener’s arguments, first, the Board of Appeal found, in paragraph 28 of the contested decision, that there was nothing in the representation of the contested design to indicate that it was intended to be applied only to soles for working or safety shoes. Second, the Board of Appeal stated that the mere reference to the products actually placed on the market was not such as to lead to a different definition of the sector concerned, since it was not apparent from the representation of the contested design that it covered a different product category.

24 The intervener disputes the definition of the relevant sector. It claims that the sector concerned is that of soles for working and safety shoes and not that of footwear soles in general. The intervener maintains that the features of the sole, such as its strongly notched profile, the reinforced toe and heel protection, the four-section undersole, the enhanced lift of the heel section and the blue inlays, which allow for protection of the foot against impact and increased flexion, resistance and stability, show that the sole is intended to be used in working and safety shoes.

25 In that regard, in order to ascertain the product in which the contested design is intended to be incorporated or to which it is intended to be applied, the relevant indication in the application for registration of that design should be taken into account, but also, where necessary, the design itself, in so far as it makes clear the nature of the product, its intended purpose or its function (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 March 2010, Grupo Promer Mon Graphic v OHIM – PepsiCo (Representation of a circular promotional item) , T‑9/07, EU:T:2010:96, paragraph 56).

26 In the present case, as the Board of Appeal correctly stated, it is apparent from the application for registration of the contested design that the products covered by it were described as ‘footwear soles’ falling within Class 02.04 within the meaning of the Locarno Agreement. The intervener therefore chose, itself, not to limit the registration of the contested design solely to ‘soles for working and safety shoes’. Consequently, the description in the application for registration relates to the ‘footwear soles’ sector in general.

27 Furthermore, as regards the representations of the contested design, reproduced in paragraph 2 above, they likewise do not indicate the nature of the products in which that design is intended to be incorporated or to which it is intended to be applied, their intended purpose or their function. None of the features of that design, cited by the intervener, are such as to demonstrate that it is intended to be applied solely to the soles of working and safety shoes, to the exclusion of all other footwear soles.

28 In those circumstances, the Board of Appeal was correct to find that the products incorporating the contested design were footwear soles.

29 Accordingly, the intervener’s argument regarding the definition of the sector concerned must be rejected.

The informed user

30 In paragraph 31 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal defined the informed user as ‘any member of the general public who habitually purchases such items [namely footwear], [puts] them to their intended use, possesses a certain degree of knowledge with regard to the features which those designs normally include and has become informed on the subject by browsing through catalogues of, or including, shoes, visiting the relevant stores, downloading information from the internet or searching for them via any other means. Due to their knowledge of footwear soles and shoes, the informed user is aware of the features that such a product must possess and of the limitations of the design freedom in that respect.’ The Board of Appeal found, in paragraph 32 of the contested decision, that the level of attention of the informed user was relatively high.

31 The applicant disputes the Board of Appeal’s assessment concerning the informed user’s level of attention and submits that that level is only slightly above average. Since the products at issue are consumer products which are not necessarily intended for professional use, the informed user would be an informed consumer who, unlike the informed user, would not be able to make direct, side-by-side comparisons of the products, but only superficial comparisons, relying on his or her memory.

32 Furthermore, the applicant submits that there is contradictory reasoning in the contested decision between paragraph 31, concerning the definition of the informed user, and paragraphs 32 and 40, concerning the level of attention of the informed user and the possibility for the latter to make a direct comparison of the designs at issue.

33 EUIPO and the intervener dispute the applicant’s line of argument.

34 According to the case-law on the concept of an ‘informed user’, the status of ‘user’ implies that the person concerned, whether an end user or a professional purchaser, uses the product in which the design is incorporated in accordance with the purpose for which that product is intended. The qualifier ‘informed’ suggests that, without being a designer or a technical expert, the user knows the various designs which exist in the sector concerned, possesses a certain degree of knowledge with regard to the features which those designs normally include, and, as a result of his or her interest in the products concerned, shows a relatively high level of attention when he or she uses them. However, that factor does not imply that the informed user is able to distinguish, beyond the experience gained by using the product concerned, the aspects of the appearance of the product which are dictated by the product’s technical function from those which are arbitrary (see, to that effect, judgments of 20 October 2011, PepsiCo v Grupo Promer Mon Graphic , C‑281/10 P, EU:C:2011:679, paragraph 53, and of 3 July 2024, Canalones Castilla v EUIPO – Canalones Novokanal (Water-collection guttering or waterspout) , T‑329/22, not published, EU:T:2024:438, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited).

35 As regards the informed user’s level of attention, although the informed user is not the well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect average consumer who normally perceives a design as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details, he or she is also not an expert or specialist capable of observing in detail the minimal differences that may exist between the designs at issue (see, to that effect, judgments of 20 October 2011, PepsiCo v Grupo Promer Mon Graphic , C‑281/10 P, EU:C:2011:679, paragraph 59, and of 3 July 2024, Water-collection guttering or waterspout, T‑329/22, not published, EU:T:2024:438, paragraph 52).

36 In the present case, it must be stated that the Board of Appeal was entitled to find that the informed user displayed a relatively high level of attention. Contrary to the claims of the applicant, the informed user is not an average consumer within the meaning of trade mark law (see judgment of 29 October 2025, Ningbo Vasa Intelligent Technology v EUIPO – Electronic Controls (Warning lights (part of -)) , T‑550/24, not published, EU:T:2025:999, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited), and displays, in that capacity, a relatively high level of attention. It may also make direct comparisons of the designs at issue (see judgments of 18 October 2012, Neuman and Galdeano del Sel v Baena Grupo , C‑101/11 P and C‑102/11 P, EU:C:2012:641, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited, and of 2 February 2022, Novelis Deutschland v EUIPO – CU.CO. (Grill dish) , T‑173/21, not published, EU:T:2022:41, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).

37 Furthermore, the applicant does not adduce any evidence in support of its claim that the informed user is not in a position to make direct comparisons of the products at issue or that such a comparison is impracticable or uncommon in the sector concerned. In particular, it did not explain why those products would not, as a general rule, be presented close to each other in the outlets marketing those products.

38 Finally, contrary to what the applicant claims, there is no contradictory reasoning in the contested decision concerning the possibility for the informed user to make a direct comparison of the designs at issue. According to the case-law cited in paragraph 36 above, the informed user will generally make a direct comparison between the designs at issue, unless it is impracticable or uncommon in the sector concerned. Furthermore, it is not apparent from paragraph 31 of the contested decision that the Board of Appeal ruled out the possibility of such a comparison.

39 It follows that the Board of Appeal’s finding concerning the relatively high level of attention of the informed user in the present case must be upheld.

The degree of freedom of the designer and the saturation of the state of the prior art

40 In paragraph 36 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal held that the designer’s freedom when developing footwear soles was, admittedly, restricted by the shoe’s outer shape and the need for abrasion resistance, durability, firmness, adherence, postural steadiness and user comfort and safety. However, the designer remained free to determine, inter alia, the outer shape, materials, colours, patterns, and decorative elements of the sole and its parts. Accordingly, in the light of those elements, the Board of Appeal recognised a significant degree of freedom on the part of the designer.

41 In paragraph 51 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal noted that the prior art in the relevant sector was not saturated.

42 The applicant, whilst not disputing the Board of Appeal’s findings on the degree of freedom of the designer and the saturation of the state of the prior art, claims that the Board of Appeal did not draw the correct conclusions from those findings. Furthermore, it submits that it exhausted the designer’s freedom in developing the designs of the ‘Puma Hybrid’ series, since it succeeded in establishing a new trend on the market with its sole incorporating a pebble-like structure. The Board of Appeal should therefore have taken the view that the differences between those designs and the contested design had to be even greater in order to create a different overall impression on the informed user.

43 EUIPO and the intervener dispute the applicant’s arguments.

44 According to the case-law, the designer’s degree of freedom in developing his or her design is established, inter alia, by the constraints of the features imposed by the technical function of the product or an element thereof, or by statutory requirements applicable to the product. Those constraints result in a standardisation of certain features, which will thus be common to the designs applied to the product concerned (judgment of 18 March 2010, Representation of a circular promotional item , T‑9/07, EU:T:2010:96, paragraph 67).

45 The influence of the factor relating to the designer’s degree of freedom on individual character varies according to a rule of inverse proportionality. Thus, the greater the designer’s freedom in developing a design, the less likely it is that minor differences between the designs at issue will be sufficient to produce a different overall impression on an informed user. Conversely, the more the designer’s freedom in developing a design is restricted, the more likely it is that minor differences between the designs at issue will be sufficient to produce a different overall impression on an informed user. In other words, if the designer enjoys a high degree of freedom in developing a design, that reinforces the conclusion that the designs which do not have significant differences produce the same overall impression on an informed user and, accordingly, the contested design does not display an individual character. Conversely, if the designer has a low degree of freedom, that reinforces the conclusion that the sufficiently marked differences between the designs produce a dissimilar overall impression on the informed user and, accordingly, the contested design displays an individual character (see judgment of 13 June 2019, Display holder for vehicles , T‑74/18, EU:T:2019:417, paragraph 76 and the case-law cited).

46 As regards the applicant’s argument that the Board of Appeal did not draw the correct conclusions from the designer’s degree of freedom and the lack of saturation of the state of the prior art, the Court recalls, first, that the criterion of the designer’s freedom is a factor which makes it possible to moderate the assessment of the individual character of the contested design, rather than an independent factor which determines how different two designs have to be for one of them to be able to rely on individual character. In other words, the factor relating to the designer’s degree of freedom may reinforce or, a contrario , moderate the conclusion as regards the overall impression produced by each design at issue (see judgment of 6 June 2019, Porsche v EUIPO – Autec (Motor vehicles) , T‑209/18, EU:T:2019:377, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).

47 Contrary to the claims of the applicant, the Board of Appeal took that criterion into account and found that the differences between the designs at issue were sufficiently pronounced to produce a different overall impression on the informed user.

48 The Court recalls, second, that any saturation of the state of the art could be capable of making the informed user more attentive to the differences in the designs compared, with the result that a design may, as a result of saturation of the state of the art, have individual character resulting from features which, in the absence of such saturation, would not tend to give rise to a different overall impression on an informed user (see judgment of 23 July 2025, EveMotion v EUIPO – WMK Trading (Pavilion) , T‑54/24, not published, EU:T:2025:753, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).

49 It must be stated, as observed by EUIPO, that the applicant did not specify in the application the conclusions which the Board of Appeal should have drawn from the lack of saturation of the state of the prior art.

50 Therefore, the applicant does not put forward any argument capable of calling into question the Board of Appeal’s findings that there was no saturation of the state of the prior art in the sector concerned.

51 As regards the applicant’s argument that it exhausted the designer’s freedom by developing the prior designs of the ‘Puma Hybrid’ series which incorporate a midsole with a pebble-like structure, the Court finds that the designer’s freedom does not lie solely in the use of a particle structure in the midsole, but also extends to the shape, materials and colour of the various elements of the sole, which are all equally arbitrary features. Moreover, this was acknowledged by the applicant itself in paragraph 42 of the application.

52 In the context of the argument referred to in paragraphs 42 and 51 above, the applicant submits that it created a new design trend for shoes. That fact cannot be regarded as a factor which restricts the designer’s freedom, since it is precisely that freedom on the part of the designer that allows him or her to discover new shapes and new trends or even to innovate in the context of an existing trend (see judgment of 10 November 2021, Building panels , T‑193/20, EU:T:2021:782, paragraph 63 and the case-law cited).

53 Accordingly, as the Board of Appeal correctly stated in paragraph 49 of the contested decision, the question whether a design follows or creates a trend is relevant, at most, to the aesthetic perception of the design concerned. It can therefore, possibly, have an influence on the commercial success of the product in which the design is incorporated. By contrast, such a question is not relevant in the examination of the individual character of the design concerned, which consists in verifying whether the overall impression produced by it differs from the overall impressions produced by the designs made available earlier, irrespective of the aesthetic or commercial considerations (see judgment of 10 November 2021, Building panels , T‑193/20, EU:T:2021:782, paragraph 64 and the case-law cited). In addition, the originality or presumed unprecedented character of the earlier designs has no influence whatsoever on the assessment of the individual character of the contested design (judgment of 21 April 2021, Bibita Group v EUIPO – Benkomers (Beverage bottle) , T‑326/20, EU:T:2021:208, paragraph 40).

54 Assuming that the applicant’s argument must be understood as claiming that the prior designs enjoy broad protection because it created the particle surface, the Court recalls that the examination of the ground for invalidity referred to in Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version, contrary to that referred to in Article 25(1)(e) of that regulation, in its earlier version, or contrary to infringement proceedings, is not part of the rationale of protection of an earlier right. The ground for invalidity referred to in Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version, consists solely in determining whether the contested design satisfies the conditions for registration set out in Articles 4 to 9 of that regulation. Furthermore, as is apparent from the case-law, the comparison of the overall impressions produced by the designs at issue must take as a basis the features disclosed in the contested design and must relate solely to the protected features of that design, without taking account of the features, in particular technical features, excluded from the protection (see judgments of 8 May 2024, Footwear , T‑757/22, EU:T:2024:291, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited, and of 8 May 2024, Footwear , T‑758/22, EU:T:2024:292, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).

55 Thus, even if it were established that the particle structure was entirely new on the date of its registration or disclosure in the sector concerned, the uniqueness of such a structure does not confer on the prior designs broader protection than that which they enjoy under Regulation No 6/2002 (judgment of 21 April 2021, Beverage bottle , T‑326/20, EU:T:2021:208, paragraph 40).

56 Therefore, the scope of protection of prior designs is not relevant under Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version, read in conjunction with Article 6 of that regulation.

57 In any event, the applicant has not adduced evidence in support of its assertion that it exhausted the designer’s freedom by creating the pebble-like structure and that that structure was completely new on the market concerned when it was registered or disclosed.

58 It follows that the Board of Appeal was correct to find that the degree of freedom of the designer was high as regards the shape, materials, colours and decorative elements of the sole and its parts. Therefore, it was not required to take the view that the differences between the designs at issue, as the applicant claims, had to be even ‘greater’ in order to create a different overall impression on the informed user.

59 In those circumstances, the applicant’s arguments must be rejected.

Relevant elements to be taken into account in the prior designs D1 to D11

60 In paragraph 39 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal stated that only the sole, and not the whole shoe in the prior designs, would be assessed for the purposes of analysing the individual character of the contested design and that, in so far as the representation of that design reveals colours, these would also be taken into account. In addition, it stated that, for the prior designs D1 to D11, any disclaimed feature would be taken into account.

61 The applicant alleges that the Board of Appeal took into account the disclaimed features of those prior designs, including the upper of the shoe, represented by broken lines, even though it stated that only the sole had to be taken into account.

62 EUIPO disputes the applicant’s line of argument.

63 In the present case, the applicant disputes the fact that, in the context of the comparison of the overall impressions of the designs at issue, the upper of the prior designs D1 to D11, on the one hand, and, in so far as the applicant’s argument should be understood in that sense, the broken line elements present in those designs, on the other, were taken into account by the Board of Appeal.

64 It is necessary to examine in turn those two complaints for the purpose of determining the relevant elements to be taken into account in the comparison of the overall impressions of the designs at issue.

65 In that regard, pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version, the comparison of the overall impression produced by the designs at issue must be made in the light of the overall appearance of each of those designs (judgment of 28 October 2021, Ferrari , C‑123/20, EU:C:2021:889, paragraph 46).

66 However, the comparison of the overall impressions produced by the designs at issue must take as a basis the features disclosed in the contested design. The fact that the prior design would disclose additional elements which are not present in the contested design is irrelevant for the comparison of the designs at issue (see judgments of 8 May 2024, Footwear , T‑757/22, EU:T:2024:291, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited, and of 8 May 2024, Footwear , T‑758/22, EU:T:2024:292, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).

67 Furthermore, in the context of the examination of the ground for invalidity referred to in Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version, read in conjunction with Article 6 of that regulation, the sole function of the earlier design is to reveal the state of the prior art, that is to say, the corpus of previous designs relating to the product in question that were disclosed on the date of filing the contested design. However, the fact that a prior design belongs to that corpus of previous designs is the result of the mere disclosure of that design (see judgments of 16 June 2021, Davide Groppi v EUIPO – Viabizzuno (Table Lamp) , T‑187/20, EU:T:2021:363, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited; of 8 May 2024, Footwear , T‑757/22, EU:T:2024:291, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited; and of 8 May 2024, Footwear , T‑758/22, EU:T:2024:292, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited).

68 Accordingly, in order to determine whether the elements of an earlier design may be taken into account, it is not necessary to focus on the subject of the protection of that design, but solely on the question whether those elements have been disclosed (judgments of 8 May 2024, Footwear , T‑757/22, EU:T:2024:291, paragraph 47, and of 8 May 2024, Footwear , T‑758/22, EU:T:2024:292, paragraph 44).

69 In that regard, in order for the making available to the public of a design to entail the making available of all of its elements, it is essential that those elements appear clearly and precisely when the design is made available (see judgments of 8 May 2024, Footwear , T‑757/22, EU:T:2024:291, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited, and of 8 May 2024, Footwear , T‑758/22, EU:T:2024:292, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited).

70 In the present case, as regards the alleged consideration of the upper of the prior designs D1 to D11 in the comparison of the overall impressions of the designs at issue, the Court observes that the applicant’s argument is based on a misreading of the contested decision.

71 When the Board of Appeal states in paragraph 39 of the contested decision that ‘any disclaimed features will be taken into account’, that sentence must be read in conjunction with that of the same paragraph indicating that the Board of Appeal will take into account ‘only the sole and not the entire shoe’, and must be interpreted as meaning that it will take into account the disclaimed elements relating to the sole.

72 Furthermore, there is nothing in the contested decision to suggest that the Board of Appeal took into account the upper of the prior designs D1 to D11. It is apparent from paragraph 66 above that the disclosed features of the contested design, which represents only a footwear sole, serve as a basis for comparing the overall impressions produced by the designs at issue.

73 As regards the broken line elements of the prior designs D1 to D11, it is sufficient to note that, as recalled in paragraphs 67 to 69 above, the features of a prior design, even if disclaimed, which correspond to features disclosed in the contested design and which have been disclosed in a sufficiently clear and precise manner, must be taken into account in the comparison of the overall impressions of those designs. The applicant has not disputed that the disclaimed elements of the sole of the prior designs D1 to D11 had also been disclosed at the same time as the protected part of those designs. Furthermore, it must be noted that the disclaimed elements of the sole of the prior designs D1 to D11 appear in a sufficiently clear and precise manner.

74 Consequently, the Board of Appeal was correct to find that the disclaimed elements of the prior designs D1 to D11, relating to the footwear sole, could be taken into account in order to assess the individual character of the contested design.

75 Accordingly, the applicant’s argument must be rejected as unfounded.

Overall impression

76 The Board of Appeal found, in paragraphs 43 to 45 of the contested decision, that the designs at issue coincided in the fact that their midsole contained particles, but differed in a number of elements in the undersole, the side sole, the toe and the heel, which was sufficient to produce different overall impressions on the informed user.

77 In paragraph 46 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal first of all stated that, although, by their nature, footwear soles are less perceptible when they are worn, the informed user would take them into account when deciding to purchase such products and will be aware of all the other perspectives at the time of use.

78 In paragraph 47 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal then noted that, although the features of the toe and heel are typical of the products concerned, they cannot be totally excluded from the assessment of the overall impression, since they have different shapes and sizes.

79 Lastly, in paragraph 48 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal emphasised that the mere fact that all of the designs feature a side sole composed of individual particles is not in itself sufficient to create similar overall impressions.

80 The applicant disputes the Board of Appeal’s finding that the contested design produces a different impression on the informed user from that produced by the prior designs.

81 In the first place, the applicant criticises the Board of Appeal for not recognising the importance of the particle structure in the overall impression produced by the prior designs. It emphasises that the pebble-like structure of the midsole dominates the overall impression of the designs at issue, since it draws particular attention to the informed user and is the most visible feature at the time of use of the product.

82 In the second place, the applicant criticises the Board of Appeal for attaching too much importance to the existing minor differences between the designs at issue at the expense of their numerous similarities, which would amount to a breach of the principle that the comparison of the overall impressions produced by the designs at issue must be synthetic and cannot be limited to the analytical comparison of a list of similarities and differences.

83 EUIPO and the intervener dispute the applicant’s arguments.

84 As a preliminary point, it is necessary to analyse the applicant’s arguments relating to the comparison of the contested design with all of the prior designs.

85 First of all, as regards the applicant’s argument that the particle structure of the midsole dominates the overall impression of the designs at issue, the Court observes that, according to the case-law, it is possible that, in the comparison of the designs, the overall impression produced by each of them may be dominated by certain features of the products or parts of the products concerned. In order to determine whether a given feature dominates a product, or part of a product, it is necessary to evaluate the degree of influence that the different features of the product or of the part at issue exercise on the appearance of that product or of that part (judgments of 8 May 2024, Footwear , T‑757/22, EU:T:2024:291, paragraph 37, and of 8 May 2024, Footwear , T‑758/22, EU:T:2024:292, paragraph 34; see also, to that effect, judgment of 25 October 2013, Merlin and Others v OHIM – Dusyma (Games) , T‑231/10, not published, EU:T:2013:560, paragraph 36).

86 According to the applicant, the particle structure of the midsole dominates the overall impression in quantity (part covered) and quality (distinctiveness of the design), since it covers a large part of the sole and is the element that most attracts the informed consumer’s attention.

87 However, the applicant does not explain in what respect the particle structure is the feature that most attracts the informed user’s attention compared with the other features of the sole. Indeed, given the level of attention paid by such a user, it is unlikely that he or she would focus solely on this element and fail to notice the differences, inter alia, in the shape and structure of the undersoles and midsoles, and in the colours of the soles. Admittedly, it may be argued that the particle structure covers a large part of the sole in the side views of the contested design. However, the same is not true if account is taken of the views from the bottom, the front and the back of the contested design.

88 Consequently, there is no reason to take the view that the overall impression of the designs at issue will be dominated by the particle structure of the midsole.

89 Next, as regards the applicant’s arguments alleging that the Board of Appeal attached too much importance to the minor differences between the designs at issue, according to settled case-law, the individual character of a design results from an overall impression of difference or lack of ‘déjà vu’, from the point of view of an informed user, in relation to any previous presence in the design corpus, without taking account of any differences that are insufficiently significant to affect that overall impression, even though they may be more than insignificant details, but taking account of differences that are sufficiently marked so as to produce dissimilar overall impressions (see judgment of 16 February 2017, Antrax It v EUIPO – Vasco Group (Thermosiphons for radiators for heating) , T‑828/14 and T‑829/14, EU:T:2017:87, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).

90 The comparison of the overall impressions produced by the designs at issue must be synthetic and may not be limited to an analytic comparison of a list of similarities and differences. That comparison must relate solely to the characteristics protected, without taking account of the characteristics, particularly technical characteristics, excluded from the protection (see judgment of 13 June 2019, Display holder for vehicles , T‑74/18, EU:T:2019:417, paragraph 84 and the case-law cited).

91 In that regard, the applicant submits that the undersole and colours are of little significance to the overall impression of the designs at issue, since they are banal and common features to the type of product or barely visible during its use, to which the informed user will therefore pay little attention. Moreover, it submits that the differences concerning the midsoles are practically impossible to detect. Accordingly, the Board of Appeal failed to carry out a synthetic analysis of the overall impressions of the designs at issue.

92 First, as regards the undersole, it is true, as noted by the applicant, that the overall impression produced on the informed user by a design must necessarily be determined in the light of the manner in which the product in question is normally used. In that context, account must be taken of the fact that the attention of the informed user is focused rather on the most visible and most important elements when using the product (see judgment of 10 April 2024, M&T 1997 v EUIPO – VDS Czmyr Kowalik (Door and window handles) , T‑654/22, EU:T:2024:223, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited).

93 Nevertheless, even if the user sees certain products from only a limited perspective when using them, he or she will be aware of all the other perspectives at the time of use (judgment of 21 May 2015, Senz Technologies v OHIM – Impliva (Umbrellas) , T‑22/13 and T‑23/13, EU:T:2015:310, paragraph 97 (not published)).

94 For the assessment of the perception by the informed user of the appearance of the designs at issue, decisive weight must not be attached to the perspective during use of the goods into which the designs at issue are intended to be incorporated, inasmuch as the informed user also bases his or her decision to purchase and his or her decision to use the goods concerned on the design of those goods (see judgment of 24 September 2019, Piaggio & C. v EUIPO – Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry Group (Mopeds) , T‑219/18, EU:T:2019:681, paragraph 57 and the case-law cited).

95 Additionally, the importance of the visible features of the product is assessed on the basis of their impact not only on its appearance, but also on the ease with which it can be used (see judgment of 10 April 2024, Door and window handles , T‑654/22, EU:T:2024:223, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited).

96 The Court considers, as submitted by EUIPO at the hearing, that user comfort or manner of use of a product are relevant criteria for the purposes of the overall impression in so far as they make it possible to determine the importance of certain visible features of the product for the informed user, since those features influence the comparison of the overall impressions of the designs at issue. However, it must be pointed out that the protection of those designs relates solely to the visual appearance of the product.

97 In addition, the Court recalls that, where visual differences linked to support areas, the drop or the presence of certain elements in part of the designs give the informed user the impression that, when the product is used, they have an impact not only on the appearance of the product but also on its comfort, they may be taken into account (judgment of 4 February 2014, Gandia Blasco v OHIM – Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture (Cuboid Armchair) , T‑339/12, not published, EU:T:2014:54, paragraph 30).

98 Accordingly, as the Board of Appeal found in paragraph 44 of the contested decision, since the design of the undersole has a significant impact on the manner of use, comfort, stability and support of the shoe, as well as on the appearance of that product, the informed user will see and take that element into account in his or her purchasing decision. Therefore, the manner of use of the product was taken into account by the Board of Appeal in order to demonstrate how the undersole, which is a visible feature, was of undeniable importance for the informed user. Consequently, the applicant’s argument in that regard must be rejected.

99 Furthermore, the Board of Appeal was correct to note, in paragraph 46 of the contested decision, that it had not been proven that the undersole was a standardised feature due to technical constraints or legal requirements. As is apparent from paragraph 58 above, the designer’s degree of freedom is high despite some constraints listed in paragraph 40 above.

100 Accordingly, given that those constraints result in a standardisation of certain features, which will thus be common to several designs applied to the product concerned (see judgment of 9 September 2011, Kwang Yang Motor v OHIM – Honda Giken Kogyo (Internal combustion engine) , T‑10/08, not published, EU:T:2011:446, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited), it is necessary to reject the applicant’s argument that the undersole is a banal and common feature, which plays a lesser role in the assessment of the overall impression produced by the designs at issue.

101 Second, as regards colour, it is apparent from the case-law cited in paragraph 66 above that the comparison of the overall impressions must be based on the disclosed features of the contested design. Therefore, the features lacking in the prior designs create additional differences between the designs at issue, which must be taken into account. It follows that, contrary to what the applicant claims, the absence or difference of colour in the prior designs when compared with the contested design is not without importance in the assessment of the overall impressions of those designs.

102 Third, as regards the midsole, the Board of Appeal found, in paragraph 45 of the contested decision, that the particles of the contested design were higher in the heel section, where they are interrupted by black-covered riffled blue inlays, and gradually decrease towards the toe.

103 In the present case, the Court finds that the distribution and arrangement of the particles are different in the prior designs. As the Board of Appeal correctly noted, whilst the particles of the prior designs D1 and D9 are not interrupted, those of the prior designs D18, D24, D26, D27 and D29 are interrupted in the middle of the sole by a gap or a device. Furthermore, in the prior design D12, particles are incorporated into a device in the middle of the sole, whilst in the prior designs D10 and D13 to D17, particles are included only in the middle of the sole or in the heel.

104 The Board of Appeal was therefore correct to find that the distribution and arrangement of the particles were different in the prior designs.

105 Those differences are clearly perceptible to the informed user and must therefore be taken into account when comparing the overall impressions, given that they contribute to creating a different overall impression of the designs at issue.

106 In those circumstances, the applicant’s argument that the Board of Appeal based its findings on minor differences and did not carry out a synthetic analysis must be rejected.

107 It is in the light of those considerations that the comparison of the overall impressions of the various prior designs with that of the contested design must be analysed in greater detail.

– The comparison between the contested design and the prior designs D1 to D6 and D9

108 As is apparent from paragraph 76 above, the Board of Appeal found, in paragraph 43 of the contested decision, that the designs at issue coincided in the presence of a particle structure in their sole, but had a number of differences, which were sufficient to produce different overall impressions on the informed user.

109 In that regard, in paragraph 44 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal noted that the undersole of the contested design was divided into four segments, forming grooves, and included an ‘S’-shaped blue device in the heel, as well as eight ‘L’-shaped blue inlays and arrow-like profiles in each segment. By contrast, the prior designs D1 and D9 lacked features, whereas the prior designs D3, D4 and D6 featured a ‘Y’-shaped device and the prior designs D2 and D5 featured a reverse ‘J’-like device.

110 In paragraph 45 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal found that the shape, structure, and distribution and arrangement of the particles of the side soles were different. Accordingly, due to its division into four sections, the contested design created a wave-like effect, whereas the side soles of the prior designs appeared smooth (prior designs D1 and D9) or slightly curvy with additional elements at the back (prior designs D2 and D5) or in the middle (prior designs D3, D4 and D6). The Board of Appeal stated that this affected the arrangement and distribution of the particles in relation to the contested design, as referred to in paragraph 103 above. Therefore, the particles of the prior designs were either uninterrupted (prior designs D1 and D9) or interrupted by an element at the level of the heel (prior designs D2 and D5) or in the middle (prior designs D3, D4 and D6).

111 In paragraph 47 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal also noted that the toe of the contested design had a broad raised black element with horizontal lines, whereas the prior designs D2 to D6 had a thin and pointed element. As regards the heel, the contested design contained a black device in the Achilles tendon area, which was absent from the prior designs D1 and D9 and differed in its shape in the prior designs D2 to D6.

112 The applicant submits that the designs at issue share many similarities, which it cites in paragraph 53 of its application, and states that, among those similarities, the structure of the midsole is the most important.

113 EUIPO and the intervener dispute the applicant’s line of argument.

114 In the present case, it is true that the designs at issue may share certain visual features, inter alia, regarding the pebble-like structure of the midsole and the thickness of the sole. Nevertheless, the contested design differs, primarily, from the prior designs D1 to D6 and D9 in the shape, colour and decorative elements of the undersole, in the shape, structure, and distribution and arrangement of the particles of the midsoles, and in the differences in the toe and heel. Those differences are sufficient to give the designs at issue a distinct overall impression which will not escape the notice of an informed user displaying a relatively high level of attention.

115 In any event, the applicant merely lists elements of similarity, without specifying to what extent those elements make it possible to create a similar overall impression between the designs at issue. Therefore, it does not carry out a synthetic analysis, in accordance with the requirements of the case-law cited in paragraph 90 above.

116 Consequently, the Board of Appeal’s findings must be upheld and the applicant’s arguments rejected.

– The comparison between the contested design and the prior designs D7, D8, D10 and D11

117 In paragraph 53 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal stated that the prior designs D7 to D8, D10 and D11 differed even more from the contested design.

118 In that regard, the Board of Appeal found, in paragraph 54 of the contested decision, that, unlike the contested design, the side sole of the prior design D7 was straight and that of the prior design D10 was sharply curved. Moreover, it contained particles only from the heel to the middle of the sole. The prior design D8, for its part, differed from the corresponding views of the contested design. Furthermore, the prior design D11, being merely an abstract particle arrangement, could not be clearly associated with a footwear sole. Lastly, the undersole cannot be discerned from the views of those prior designs.

119 Consequently, the Board of Appeal found, in paragraph 55 of the contested decision, that, placed side by side, the differences would be noticed immediately by an informed user, in view of his or her relatively high degree of attention.

120 Those findings of the Board of Appeal must be upheld.

121 It is true, as is apparent from paragraph 114 above, that the designs at issue may share certain visual features. However, the contested design differs even more from the prior designs D7, D8, D10 and D11 than from the prior designs D1 to D6 and D9, in that many of the features disclosed in the contested design were absent from the prior designs, creating further differences between those designs. Consequently, those differences are sufficient to confer a distinct overall impression on the designs in question, which will not escape the notice of an informed user displaying a relatively high level of attention.

122 The applicant’s argument that the prior designs D10 and D11, which present the pebble-like structure in an abstract manner, show that the difference in the size or distribution of the particles has no bearing on the overall impression on the informed user does not call the foregoing into question.

123 According to case-law, the assessment of the individual character of a design must be carried out in relation to one or more earlier designs, taken individually from among all the designs which have been made available to the public previously, and not in relation to a combination of isolated elements, taken from a number of earlier designs (see judgment of 13 June 2019, Display holder for vehicles , T‑74/18, EU:T:2019:417, paragraph 84 and the case-law cited).

124 Therefore, since the designs D7, D8, D10 and D11 must be considered individually, it must be held that they differ even more from the contested design.

– The comparison between the contested design and the prior designs D12 to D19 and D21 to D30

125 In paragraph 56 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal found that the prior designs D12 to D19 and D21 to D30 revealed a plethora of differences, which created a different overall impression.

126 In that regard, in paragraphs 57 and 58 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal noted that the prior designs differed from the contested design in relation to the side sole, inter alia, in the distribution of the particles, in relation to the colours of the particles (grey against yellow, green, etc.) and to the background on which they appear (black against white for the prior designs D21, D23 and D28 to D30) and in relation to the heel, inter alia, by the absence or different shape of the black device on the Achilles tendon. In addition, the contested design revealed other features in its additional views, such as the undersole and the insole, which could not be discerned in the images of the prior designs.

127 Consequently, the Board of Appeal found, in paragraph 59 of the contested decision, that the overall impression produced by the contested design on the informed user was clearly different to that produced by the prior designs.

128 The applicant claims that the similarities in the midsoles in the prior designs D19, D23 to D25, D27 and D29 are obvious. Furthermore, the Board of Appeal could not have cited and identified other differences in relation to the prior designs D19 and D25.

129 EUIPO and the intervener dispute the applicant’s arguments.

130 The Court finds, in agreement with EUIPO, that the applicant has not substantiated its argument that the similarities of the midsoles in the prior designs D19, D22 to D25, D27 and D29 are obvious.

131 It is true that the designs at issue share the particle structure of the midsole. Nevertheless, the differences in the shape of the side soles and in the way in which the particles are applied to the sole are even clearer than for the other prior designs, as is apparent from a visual analysis of those designs. Furthermore, as with the prior designs D7, D8, D10 and D11, the absence of additional views creates even greater differences from the contested design.

132 Moreover, the applicant’s argument that the Board of Appeal was unable to identify other differences in relation to the prior designs D19, D22 and D25 stems from a misreading of the contested decision. As stated in paragraph 58 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal noted that those designs differed from the contested design, in that the particles had varying indentations and curvatures creating a curvy shape.

133 In any event, the Board of Appeal stated, in paragraph 57 of the contested decision, that it would carry out a cursory and therefore non-exhaustive comparison. However, the differences identified by the Board of Appeal, in the course of that analysis, are sufficient to create different overall impressions on the informed user displaying a relatively high level of attention.

134 The Board of Appeal was therefore correct to find that the contested design produced a different overall impression from that produced by the prior designs D12 to D19 and D21 to D30.

135 It follows from the foregoing that none of the prior designs relied on by the applicant produce the same overall impression as that produced by the contested design and that the contested decision is not vitiated by any ground for annulment or alteration.

136 The single plea in law relied on by the applicant must therefore be rejected and, accordingly, the action must be dismissed in its entirety, without it being necessary for the Court to rule on the admissibility or merits of the applicant’s complaint alleging that the contested design lacks novelty within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version, given that a finding of individual character implies a finding of novelty in respect of the design concerned (see judgment of 15 March 2023, Homy Casa v EUIPO – Albatros International (Chairs) , T‑89/22, not published, EU:T:2023:132, paragraph 71 and the case-law cited) and that, in the present case, the contested design has that individual character.

Costs

137 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.

138 Since a hearing has taken place and the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the forms of order sought by EUIPO and the intervener.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)

hereby:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Puma SE to pay the costs.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 2 September 2026.

* Language of the case: English.