The General Court of the European Union has dismissed Crocs’ appeal against the invalidity of its registered European Union design, confirming the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) that the well-known clog design lacks the required individual character.

The judgment, delivered on 22 April 2026 in Case T-228/25, provides important guidance on how individual character should be assessed under EU design law and serves as another reminder that even globally recognised products must satisfy the same legal requirements as any other registered design.

Background of the Dispute

Crocs obtained registration for its well-known perforated clog design in the European Union in 2004, claiming priority from May of the same year.

In 2022, Spanish company Gor Factory S.A. initiated invalidity proceedings before EUIPO, arguing that the registered design did not differ sufficiently from an earlier clog design marketed under the name “Holey Soles.”

Both the EUIPO Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal concluded that the earlier design produced the same overall impression on the informed user and declared the Community design invalid.

Crocs subsequently challenged that decision before the General Court.

Broad Design Freedom in Footwear Design

One of Crocs’ principal arguments was that the designer’s freedom in developing clogs is significantly restricted by functional requirements, including a rounded toe, an open heel and a flat sole.

The General Court rejected that argument.

According to the Court, although footwear is subject to certain functional constraints, designers still enjoy considerable freedom regarding numerous design features, including:

  • the number and arrangement of ventilation holes;
  • the shape and proportions of the upper;
  • colours and materials;
  • decorative elements; and
  • overall styling.

Because the degree of design freedom is relatively broad, relatively minor differences are generally insufficient to create a different overall impression capable of establishing individual character.

The Heel Strap Was Not a Decisive Difference

Crocs also argued that the heel strap distinguished its design from the earlier Holey Soles product.

The Court was not persuaded.

It found that both designs shared the same essential visual characteristics, including:

  • a thick sole;
  • a rounded toe;
  • the characteristic ventilation holes;
  • side openings; and
  • an overall similar silhouette.

The heel strap was considered a secondary design feature that did not significantly alter the overall impression created by the design.

Accordingly, it was insufficient to confer individual character on the registered design.

Commercial Success Does Not Determine Validity

Crocs further relied on the worldwide commercial success of its footwear, its iconic status and its inclusion in publications celebrating influential product designs.

The Court held that these factors are legally irrelevant when assessing the validity of a registered design.

Under EU design law, individual character is determined objectively by considering:

  • the overall impression produced on the informed user;
  • the earlier design corpus; and
  • the degree of freedom available to the designer.

Commercial success, brand recognition or cultural significance cannot compensate for the absence of individual character.

Key Takeaways

The judgment reinforces several established principles of EU design law:

  • Commercially successful or iconic products are not exempt from the legal requirements governing design protection.
  • Individual character is assessed through an objective comparison of the overall visual impression created by competing designs.
  • In sectors where designers enjoy considerable creative freedom, relatively small design differences may not be sufficient to justify protection.
  • Adding a single new design feature—such as the heel strap in this case—will not necessarily create a different overall impression.
  • Businesses should consider protecting different product variants through separate design filings at an early stage rather than relying on later registrations.

The decision is particularly relevant for businesses operating in industries such as footwear, fashion, furniture and consumer products, where design protection plays a central role in brand strategy.

Case Information

  • Court: General Court of the European Union
  • Case Number: T-228/25
  • Decision Date: 22 April 2026
  • Parties: Crocs, Inc. v. European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) – Gor Factory S.A.