Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-12-14
R2021/2019-3
Contested design: 002459701-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Mattel, Inc.via PDF extraction
United States (US)
333 Continental Boulevard, El Segundo, California 90245-5012, United States of America
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
JIEYANG DEFA INDUSTRY CO., LTD.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Deqiao Industry Zone, Xihe Yuecheng, Jiedong, Jieyang, Guangdong 515 543, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
fashion doll head ('Barbie CEO Sculpture')
Barbie KATALOG Jesień/Zima 2008 / Mattel catalogues · Mattel catalogues, including Mattel Poland Sp. z o.o.
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder challenged disclosure of the Mattel catalogues and argued that the doll heads differed in contours, facial details and overall impression.
- ›Mattel argued that its Barbie catalogues were genuinely distributed across several EU markets and that the earlier 'Barbie CEO Sculpture' produced the same overall impression as the contested doll head.
- ›The Board found the catalogue evidence reliable and sufficient to prove disclosure, rejected the market-preference argument as a limit on design freedom, and focused on the coinciding facial proportions, eyes, eyebrows, lips and expression.
- ›Because the differences in hair, skull shape and bottom hole carried little weight, the prior design destroyed individual character and the appeal was dismissed.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0181/2025-3 | 2025-05-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0827/2024-3 | 2025-03-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0797/2024-3 | 2025-01-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1123/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1125/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1124/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1015/2024-3 | 2024-11-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |