Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-04-04
R0339/2018-3
Contested design: 001076178-0017
Outcome
The Board annuls the invalidation decision and rejects the invalidity application; the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the design holder's costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision; 2. Rejects the application for a declaration of invalidity; 3. Orders that the invalidity applicant bear the design holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
INKYPINKYBLINKY ApS
Denmark (DK)
Vesterbrogade 24, 2, 1620 København V, Denmark
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Lego A/S
Denmark (DK)
Aastvej 1, 7190 Billund, Denmark
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
Toy brick with square platform, central circular rim and tall cylindrical element; sold by Lego A/S since approximately 1997
Lego A/S sales; www.brickset.com · disclosed 1997-01-01
Toy brick with solid stud and different platform-to-stud proportions; sold by Lego A/S since approximately 1997
Lego A/S sales; www.brickset.com · disclosed 1997-01-01
Toy brick with rectangular (not square) platform; sold by Lego A/S since approximately 1997
Lego A/S sales; www.brickset.com · disclosed 1997-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Design holder (appellant) argued that the Invalidity Division wrongly ignored the tall cylindrical element present in earlier design 1 but absent from the RCD; it also identified differences in proportions and stud configuration versus designs 2 and 3, each sufficient to create different overall impressions.
- ›Invalidity applicant did not submit observations on appeal.
- ›The Board found that none of the three earlier designs destroys novelty: absence of the cylindrical element (design 1), different platform-to-stud proportions and surface (design 2), and different platform shape (design 3) are not immaterial details; all three produce different overall impressions on the informed user.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected as unfounded; costs ordered against the invalidity applicant.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |