DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008028385-0001

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

R2028/2021-3

Contested design: 008028385-0001

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 maintained that its toy figure should be assessed as a building-block figure with constrained design freedom and that it produced a different overall impression from LEGO’s earlier design.
  • LEGO argued that the relevant sector was toy figures in general and that the earlier FRIENDS figure D1 created the same overall impression despite small detail differences.
  • The Board found that the shared proportions, head and torso profile, arm and hand shapes, skirted lower body and feet dominated the comparison, while differences such as ears, the top head element, skirt details and shoes were only minor.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the design holder was ordered 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
R2471/2023-32024-08-26Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)7
R2422/2022-32024-01-30Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)7
R0133/2022-32022-12-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)7
R2206/2021-32022-12-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)7
R0055/2022-32022-10-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)7
R2054/2021-32022-08-19Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)7
R0303/2021-32022-07-12Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)7
R0857/2021-32022-03-23Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)7