← Back to search
Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-05-30
R1524/2021-3
Contested design: 001664368-0006
CDRAppellant: applicant
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Delta Sport Handelskontor GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Wragekamp 6, 22397 Hamburg, Germany
Holder · RCD owner
Lego A/Svia PDF extraction
Denmark (DK)
Aastvej 1, 7190 Billund, Denmark
Represented by
Legal grounds invoked
Article 25(1)(b)Article 8(1)Article 8(3)
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that all visible features of the Lego brick, including the smooth upper surfaces beside the studs, were solely dictated by technical function and that the modular-systems exception should not save the design.
- ›The design holder relied on the General Court's remittal judgment and argued both that the smooth upper surfaces were not solely technical and that, in any event, the design was protected as a connecting element in a modular system under Article 8(3) CDR.
- ›The Board concluded that all features of the contested brick were indeed solely dictated by technical function, but also held that the brick served the assembly and connection of mutually interchangeable products within a modular system and therefore benefited from the exception in Article 8(3) CDR.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the design remained valid.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R0204/2024-3 | 2025-06-04 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 8(2) | — | 9 |
| R0029/2018-3 | 2024-09-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 8(2) | — | 9 |
| R1654/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 8(2), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R1694/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 8(2), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R1699/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 8(2), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R1695/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 8(2), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |
| R1696/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 8(2), Art 63(2) | — | 9 |