DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004366300-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-03-25

000103520

Contested design: 004366300-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay 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 004366300-0001 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 Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China

Represented by

A.A. Thornton & Co.

Holder · RCD owner

Zheng Zeng

China (CN)

No. 28, 8th Villagers Group, Menggong Village, Menggong Town, Xinhua County, Hunan Province, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (1)

Prior use

Fingerlings monkey figure 'Mia' marketed by the applicant as a finger toy monkey.

YouTube review video, UK sales and shipment records, and supporting UK website articles · disclosed 2017-02-20

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested monkey toy design lacked individual character because at least six earlier Fingerlings monkey designs had been disclosed and marketed before the RCD filing date.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply and did not rebut the applicant's witness statements, online materials, videos, or UK sales evidence.
  • The Division found the evidence sufficient to prove public disclosure of the earlier Fingerlings monkey designs under Article 7(1) CDR and compared the contested RCD with the earlier Mia variant.
  • The Division held that colour changes and the absence of hair did not alter the overall impression of the monkey figure, so the contested RCD lacked individual character and had to be invalidated.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberKelly BENNETT

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