DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008028385-0005

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-07-20

R2024/2021-3

Contested design: 008028385-0005

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the appellant must bear the respondent’s costs.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Beschwerdeführerin trägt die Kosten der Beschwerdegegnerin.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

LEGO Juris A/Svia PDF extraction

Denmark (DK)

Koldingvej 2, 7190 Billund, Dänemark

Represented by

Bomhard IP, S.L.

Holder · RCD owner

Guangdong Xingbao Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

Longtan Industrial Area, Shangxiang Village, Lianshang Town, Chenghai District, Shantou City, Guangdong Province, Volksrepublik China

Represented by

NLO Shieldmark B.V.

Prior art cited (1)

International designD1

LEGO FRIENDS toy figure

International design No 76470-0019 · International Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-08-31

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 6Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The design holder argued that the relevant sector was building-block toy figures, that designer freedom was constrained, and that its figurine produced a different overall impression from LEGO’s earlier design.
  • The invalidity applicant replied that the correct sector was toy figures generally, that designer freedom was broad, and that the earlier LEGO FRIENDS figure D1 already conveyed the same overall impression.
  • The Board agreed with the Invalidity Division that the common proportions, head profile, torso, arms, hands, skirted lower body and feet dominated the comparison, while the small differences in ears, folds, shoes and details were insufficient.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the design holder had to bear the respondent’s costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurC. Bartos
  • MemberE. Fink
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R1336/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 6(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1015/2024-32024-11-07Decision confirmedArt 6(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1719/2023-32024-06-21Decision confirmedArt 6(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1747/2022-32024-01-29Decision confirmedArt 6(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R0367/2022-32023-06-26Decision confirmedArt 6(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R2025/2021-32022-07-20Decision confirmedArt 6(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R2026/2021-32022-07-20Decision confirmedArt 6(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R0303/2021-32022-07-12Decision confirmedArt 6(1), Art 25(1)(b)7