Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-09-25
R0162/2023-3
Contested design: 001050645-0003
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder is ordered to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
GuangDong Qman Toys Industry Co.,Ltd,via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Intersection of West Side of Xingye West 2nd Road and North Side of Xingye South Road, 515000 Shantou, Guangdong, China
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Lego A/Svia PDF extraction
Denmark (DK)
Aastvej 1, 7190 Billund, Denmark
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
toy brick construction set piece forming the prior design
www.brickset.com; toy brick construction set No 7 241 'Fire Car'; piece No 61 252 · www.brickset.com
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed only the individual-character finding, arguing that the extra stud, rectangular shape, changed proportions, and underside differences created a different overall impression.
- ›The invalidity applicant maintained that the shared stud-and-clamp configuration dominated both designs and that the added stud and underside detail did not alter the same overall impression.
- ›The Board endorsed the prior disclosure finding, held that designer freedom was limited but still broad enough for meaningful variation, and assessed the informed user as attentive but not conducting a feature-by-feature inspection.
- ›The Board found the additional stud and resulting dimensional changes to be a repetition of the same pattern, treated the underside difference as secondary and unproven on the invoked prior image, and concluded that both designs create the same overall impression.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the design holder was ordered to bear the invalidity and appeal costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2274/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2273/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1575/2025-3 | 2026-04-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1394/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1318/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1396/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |