DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003852672-0018

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-09-11

000010757

Contested design: 003852672-0018

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must bear the applicant’s costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 0038526720018 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 (2)

Prior useD1

classic Lego plate

Web disclosureD2

Strictly Briks Lego-compatible flexible strap / silicone straps and connectors creative building kit

ASIN B01CIRLU0Q · amazon.co.uk and facebook.com/strictlybricks · disclosed 2016-04-21

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for technical function and, alternatively, lack of novelty or individual character over the classic Lego plate and the earlier Strictly Briks flexible strap design disclosed online in 2016.
  • The holder argued the earlier strap design was not properly disclosed, the contested features were not purely functional, and visible differences in surface lines, stud size, colours and length preserved novelty and individual character.
  • The Division accepted Enclosure A4 and the corroborating Facebook screenshot as solid Article 7 disclosure of prior design D2 before filing, but found D2 not identical to the RCD because several visible differences were more than immaterial.
  • The Division held those differences did not alter the overall impression on the informed user, so the contested design lacked individual character under Articles 25(1)(b) and 6 and was declared invalid.

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