Invalidity · first instance · 2019-02-12
000103523
Contested design: 004361434-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's fixed costs of EUR 750.
Show verbatim operative text
The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 004361434-0001 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
WowWee Group Limited
Hong Kong (HK)
Energy Plaza, Unit 301-C, 92 Granville Road, Tsim Sha Tsui East, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
WuYi Yibu Sports Protective Articles Co., Ltd.
China (CN)
No. 3 WestBuilding 6 Area 1 Nanhu Garden Shuxi Street, Wuyi, Jinhua, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
Screenshots of Fingerlings Baby Monkey dolls from YouTube review videos
www.youtube.com · YouTube · disclosed 2017-02-28
Online magazine article depicting Fingerlings baby monkey dolls
http://www.mummyalarm.co.uk · Mummy Alarm · disclosed 2017-06-12
Amazon.co.uk offer showing the earlier Fingerlings monkey design
ASIN B01MY7ZUHC · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2017-01-12
Internet Archive capture of Argos offer for the Fingerlings monkey design
https://www.argos.co.uk · Internet Archive / Argos.co.uk · disclosed 2017-08-02
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on earlier Fingerlings monkey doll designs disclosed online before 19 September 2017.
- ›The applicant relied on YouTube screenshots, an online magazine article, an Amazon listing, and an archived Argos page to prove prior disclosure.
- ›The holder filed no reply and offered no facts or evidence to rebut disclosure or the claimed similarity of the designs.
- ›The Division found disclosure proven under Article 7 and held that colour differences did not alter the overall impression, so the contested design lacked individual character.
- ›The novelty claim failed because the undisclosed bottom view was a material difference, but the application was upheld on individual character and the RCD was invalidated.
Deciding panel
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberGaile SAKALAITE
- MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000131885 vs Zhenkai Cui | 2026-04-30 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000129622 vs Squar3D Aps | 2026-04-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000129681 vs Squar3D Aps | 2026-04-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000126976 vs Dohány Kft. | 2026-04-08 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000131547 vs Brandworl Management Co., Limited | 2026-04-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000131507 vs Shenzhen Chenyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. | 2026-03-31 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000130128 vs joboo GmbH | 2026-02-03 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000130086 vs CROSS BORDEP (HK) CO., LIMITED | 2026-02-02 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |