DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003852672-0011

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-09-11

000010753

Contested design: 003852672-0011

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 0038526720011 is declared invalid. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

David Kipping

Germany (DE)

Agrippinawerft 24, 50678 Cologne, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Chrome Cherry Design Studio (PTY) Ltdvia PDF extraction

ZA

Unit 304, Salt Circle Arcade, 19 Kent Street, Salt River, 7925 Cape Town, South Africa

Prior art cited (3)

Prior useD1

classic Lego plate toy assembly block design

Web disclosureEnclosure A4

offers for silicone straps and connectors creative building kit and Silicone Roll Up by Strictly Briks

www.amazon.co.uk · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2016-04-21

Web disclosureD2

silicone Briks and straps 222 Piece flexible building bricks

ASIN B01LZWR2PL · Amazon.com · disclosed 2016-10-20

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6(1)Article 7

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested flexible toy-block tape design lacked technical distinctiveness and, at minimum, lacked novelty or individual character over earlier Lego-compatible products.
  • Holder disputed sufficient disclosure of the earlier designs, denied that the design features were purely functional, and argued the overall impression differed.
  • The Division accepted Amazon evidence for prior design D2 as a pre-filing public disclosure, found novelty preserved, but held the shared shape, stud layout, flexibility and proportions dominated the overall impression.
  • The application was upheld because the contested RCD lacked individual character under Article 6 CDR, and the holder was ordered to pay costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
  • MemberPierluigi M. VILLANI

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

21.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131885

vs Zhenkai Cui

2026-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129622

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129681

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000126976

vs Dohány Kft.

2026-04-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131547

vs Brandworl Management Co., Limited

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131507

vs Shenzhen Chenyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-31REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130128

vs joboo GmbH

2026-02-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130086

vs CROSS BORDEP (HK) CO., LIMITED

2026-02-02REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218