DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001284608-0005

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-09-09

R0029/2018-3

Contested design: 001284608-0005

CDRAppellant: applicantmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed; the invalidity applicant must bear the costs and fees incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings, fixed at EUR 900.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs and fees incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings. 3. Fixes the costs to be paid by the invalidity applicant to the design holder for the invalidity and appeal proceedings at EUR 900.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €900

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

BOMHARD IP, S.L.

Prior art cited (1)

Prior use⚠ rejected as evidence

LEGO Brick with 2x4 knobs

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 8(1)Article 8(2)Article 8(3)Article 5Article 6Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing that all features of the toy brick were solely dictated by technical function under Article 8(1) CDR, that Article 8(3) did not apply, and that an expert should be appointed.
  • The design holder argued that technical function was not the only factor behind the design and that the brick was part of a modular system protected by Article 8(3) CDR; it also challenged the applicant's late prior-art evidence.
  • The Board found that all appearance features were function-driven and also constituted interconnection features under Articles 8(1) and 8(2) CDR.
  • The Board nevertheless held that the contested RCD benefited from the Article 8(3) modular-system exception because the applicant failed timely to identify and prove earlier designs defeating novelty or individual character; the appeal was dismissed.

Deciding panel

  • ChairS. Stürmann
  • RapporteurH. Salmi
  • MemberC. Negro
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
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
R0204/2024-32025-06-04Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 8(2)9
R1524/2021-32022-05-30Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 8(2)9
R1394/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R1395/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R1826/2025-32026-04-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R0947/2025-32026-04-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R2328/2024-32025-08-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R2089/2024-32025-08-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7