DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006373684-0011

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-04-23

R1373/2020-3

Contested design: 006373684-0011

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

LEGO Juris A/Svia PDF extraction

Denmark (DK)

Koldingvej 2, 7190 Billund, Denmark

Represented by

BOMHARD IP, S.L.

Holder · RCD owner

MAR 2000 OODvia PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

JK ‘Nadejda’, 5, Stefanson str., 1220 Sofia, Bulgaria

Represented by

Bureau Ignatov & Son

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureNo 41 153 / Annex d)

toy packaging for LEGO set 41 153 'Ariel's Royal Celebration Boat'

ASIN B075SVV19R · Amazon.es · disclosed 2018-01-07

CatalogAnnex a)

packaging for set 41 153 'Ariel's Royal Celebration Boat'

LEGO Customer Catalogue January-June 2018 · LEGO Customer Catalogue · disclosed 2018-01-01

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5Article 6Article 7(1)Article 70(1)

Argument summary

  • The design holder appealed the invalidation of its packaging design, arguing that LEGO had not reliably proved disclosure of the earlier packaging and that toy boxes are constrained to standard parallelepiped forms with limited design freedom.
  • The invalidity applicant maintained that multiple public sources, especially the Amazon.es listing for product No 41 153, proved earlier disclosure and that the contested packaging was virtually identical to LEGO's earlier toy-box design.
  • The Board accepted public disclosure of the earlier design, treated the confidential distributor catalogue only as corroborative, and found that the few differences between the boxes — mainly wording and a slightly different princess rendering — were not decisive because the overall composition and visual appearance were otherwise practically identical.
  • The appeal was dismissed; the contested RCD remained invalid for lack of individual character and the design holder was ordered to bear costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurH. Salmi
  • MemberA. Szanyi Felkl
  • Registrarp.o. R. Vidal

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R2422/2022-32024-01-30Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1562/2022-32023-05-31Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1103/2022-32023-02-15Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1289/2021-32022-10-26Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1290/2021-32022-10-26Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R0055/2022-32022-10-07Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R0303/2021-32022-07-12Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R0630/2021-32022-06-27Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7