DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002778811-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-11-11

000010583

Contested design: 002778811-0001

CDR

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 002778811-0001 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

Rubik’s Brand Limited

United Kingdom (GB)

7 Lambton Place, London W11 2SH, United Kingdom

Represented by

Cabinet Lavoix

Holder · RCD owner

East Sheen Industrial Co., Ltd.

Taiwan (TW)

No. 287-21, Fang Jen Rd., Renwu Dist., Kaohsiung City 814, Taiwan, R.O.C.

Prior art cited (2)

Trade mark

Rubik’s Cube Mini; three-dimensional puzzle in the shape of a 2 × 2 × 2 cube

EUTM No 9 975 681 · EU Trade Marks Bulletin No 2011/193 · disclosed 2011-10-11

Web disclosure

Archived pages showing Rubik’s 3 × 3 and 2 × 2 Cube puzzles on http://uk.rubiks.com

https://archive.org/web/ · Internet Archive

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character over the earlier Rubik’s Cube Mini disclosed through EUTM No 9 975 681, and also invoked technical-function and trademark-conflict grounds.
  • The holder argued the design formed a novel complex sculpture of two diagonally joined cube-like bodies, denied technical-function exclusivity, and noted the earlier EUTM had been challenged.
  • The Division found the earlier cube design sufficiently disclosed under Article 7, considered designer freedom almost unlimited for play cubes, and treated the repeated cube appearance as decisive for the overall impression.
  • The application succeeded under Article 25(1)(b) with Articles 4(1) and 6 CDR; the RCD was declared invalid and the holder was ordered to pay costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
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
000010584

vs East Sheen Industrial Co., Ltd.

2019-11-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)2110
000010585

vs East Sheen Industrial Co., Ltd.

2019-11-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)2110
000106679

vs GUANGDONG ZHENFENG SCIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL TOYS CO.,LTD

2019-10-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)2110
000104541

vs Guangming CHEN

2019-07-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)2110
000010881

vs BRICK TOY SRL

2018-07-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)2110
000010880

vs BRICK TOY SRL

2018-07-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)2110
000010879

vs BRICK TOY SRL

2018-07-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)2110
000010878

vs BRICK TOY SRL

2018-06-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)2110