Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-07-01
R1466/2021-3
Contested design: 006083341-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; 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
Holder · RCD owner
GuangDong Qman Culture Communication Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Unit 08-11, 24F, Central Tower, No.5 Xiancun Road, Tianhe District., Guangzhou (Guangdong) 510 623, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
LEGO figurine / minifigure
ASIN B01K8XHM2W · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2016-08-11
LEGO minifigure
EUTM registration No 50 450 · EUTM Bulletin · disclosed 1999-11-22
LEGO minifigure
EUTM registration No 50 518 · EUTM Bulletin · disclosed 1999-11-15
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued that toy-figure design freedom was limited by technical constraints and market saturation, and that the figure’s head, torso, feet, and hands created a different overall impression.
- ›LEGO replied that the relevant features were largely arbitrary, designer freedom remained broad, and the similarities in the figurines’ core appearance dominated any small differences.
- ›The Board treated the earlier LEGO figurine trade mark registrations as prior designs validly disclosed before filing and compared the contested RCD first with D2.
- ›It found that the contested figure reproduced essential visible features of the LEGO minifigure and did not create a different overall impression, so the appeal failed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurM. Bra
- 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 |