Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-04-24
R0034/2018-3
Contested design: 001424188-0006
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder is ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's fees and costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Order the design holder to bear the invalidity applicant's fees and costs.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Shine Shimizuvia PDF extraction
Japan (JP)
1-31-12 Oshitatecho, Fuchu, Tokyo Prefecture 183-00012, Japan
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Creative Design Ideas Limitedvia PDF extraction
United Kingdom (GB)
McGills Oakley House, Tetbury Road, Cirencester Gloustershire GL7 1US, United Kingdom
Represented by
Richard R. Halstead
Prior art cited (1)
'Octoplay' octagonal inter-connectable educational toy, available to the public since 08/09/2008
amazon.co.uk · amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2008-09-08
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Design holder (appellant) argued the Invalidity Division incorrectly assessed designer freedom by attributing too much weight to similarities resulting from the technical requirement to inter-connect toy elements, and too little weight to distinguishing features (octagonal central hole, protruding dot pattern, thicker profile, wider notches) where freedom existed.
- ›Invalidity applicant endorsed the contested decision, arguing designer freedom is broad even as to shape (e.g. circular or elongated forms exist), and that distinguishing features such as arrow-shaped dot patterns and slightly different holes produce no meaningfully different overall impression given the dominant similarities.
- ›The Board confirmed a high degree of designer freedom (inter-connection requirement does not mandate octagonal shape); consequently small differences do not suffice to produce a different overall impression; the dot pattern is perceived merely as slight surface roughening; differences in hole shape, thickness and notch width are minor relative to the overall dimensions.
- ›The Board dismissed the appeal, confirming the RCD lacks individual character over D1; costs ordered against the design holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarP. Nafz
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 ↗ |
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0536/2025-3 | 2025-09-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0538/2025-3 | 2025-09-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2063/2021-3 | 2022-07-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0363/2021-3 | 2022-07-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0051/2017-3 | 2021-12-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1855/2020-3 | 2021-07-02 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1856/2020-3 | 2021-06-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2837/2019-3 | 2020-11-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |