Invalidity · first instance · 2019-11-11
000010584
Contested design: 002778811-0002
Outcome
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 002778811-0002 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
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)
Rubik’s Cube Mini / cube puzzle
EUTM No 9 975 681 · EUIPO EUTM Bulletin No 2011/193 · disclosed 2011-10-11
Internet Archive excerpts depicting Rubik’s 3×3 and 2×2 Cube puzzles
https://archive.org/web/ ; http://uk.rubiks.com · Internet Archive
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested play-cube design lacked individual character over the earlier Rubik’s Cube Mini disclosed in EUTM No 9 975 681 and also invoked technical-function and trade mark-based grounds.
- ›The holder argued that the design formed a distinct complex sculpture of three interlinked cube-like bodies, that the earlier EUTM was under challenge, and that the design’s features were not solely technically dictated.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of the earlier cube through publication of the EUTM application and found the relevant sector to be toys and playthings, with broad designer freedom for play cubes.
- ›Relying in part on an earlier Board ruling between the same parties, the Division held that the repeated 2×2 cube pattern created the same overall impression as the prior design, so the RCD lacked individual character.
- ›The application was upheld in full, the RCD was declared invalid under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4(1) and 6 CDR, and the holder was ordered to pay costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000010585 vs East Sheen Industrial Co., Ltd. | 2019-11-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 21 | 10 |
| 000010583 vs East Sheen Industrial Co., Ltd. | 2019-11-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 21 | 10 |
| 000106679 vs GUANGDONG ZHENFENG SCIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL TOYS CO.,LTD | 2019-10-23 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 21 | 10 |
| 000104541 vs Guangming CHEN | 2019-07-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 21 | 10 |
| 000010881 vs BRICK TOY SRL | 2018-07-19 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 21 | 10 |
| 000010880 vs BRICK TOY SRL | 2018-07-10 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 21 | 10 |
| 000010879 vs BRICK TOY SRL | 2018-07-10 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 21 | 10 |
| 000010878 vs BRICK TOY SRL | 2018-06-26 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 21 | 10 |