Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-05-18
R0093/2025-3
Contested design: 008074389-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder is ordered to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
Dismisses the appeal. 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 Holding A/Svia PDF extraction
Denmark (DK)
Billund, Denmark
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Jolanta Świecavia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Konin, Poland
Prior art cited (1)
3D mark for a toy figurine (LEGO minifigure)
EUTM No 50 450 · EUTM Bulletin · disclosed 1999-11-22
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued the sector was interlocking toy figurines, interoperability constrained design freedom, market saturation existed, and the contested design created a different overall impression.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that the relevant product remained toy figurines, designer freedom was broad, saturation was unproven, and the shared dominant features with D2 produced the same overall impression.
- ›The Board applied the CDR as the substantive regime, admitted the new appeal evidence, and confirmed that D2 had been disclosed before the contested design's 2020 filing date.
- ›The Board found interoperability imposed only limited constraints, the market was not shown to be saturated, minor differences did not outweigh dominant similarities, and the appeal had to be dismissed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberA. González Fernández
- RegistrarK. Zajfert
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2274/2025-3 | 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 |
| R1826/2025-3 | 2026-04-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |