DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002778811-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-11-11

000010585

Contested design: 002778811-0003

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 002778811-0003 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 (1)

Trade mark

Rubik’s Cube Mini three-dimensional puzzle cube

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

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 and technical function, and also invoked an earlier 3D EU trade mark for the Rubik’s Cube Mini.
  • The holder argued the design’s diagonal arrangement of four cube-like bodies created a novel, complex shape, disputed technical-function objections, and noted the earlier trade mark was under challenge.
  • The Division found the earlier EUTM publication sufficiently disclosed the prior design and considered designer freedom in play cubes to be almost unlimited.
  • Relying on parallel Board of Appeal reasoning, it held the repeated 2x2 cube pattern created the same overall impression as the earlier design, so the RCD lacked individual character.
  • The application was upheld in full on Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4(1) and 6, making it unnecessary to examine the remaining grounds.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI

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
000010583

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