DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003476118-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-06-29

000107899

Contested design: 003476118-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 003476118-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

LEGO Juris A/Svia PDF extraction

Denmark (DK)

Koldingvej 2, 7190 Billund, Denmark

Represented by

Bomhard IP, S.L.

Holder · RCD owner

MAR 2000 OOD

Bulgaria (BG)

JK "Nadejda", 5, Stefanson str., 1220 Sofia, Bulgaria

Represented by

Bureau Ignatov & Son

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureD1

501st Legion Clone Trooper toy figure

Brickipedia, corroborated by BrickLink, BrickOwl and Lego Fandom · disclosed 2012-12-28

Web disclosureD2

lego clone trooper lieutenant toy figure with gun

http://amazon.co.uk · Amazon UK retail portal · disclosed 2013-11-07

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character, relying on earlier toy-figure disclosures online and arguing the contested design copied its Clone Trooper figure.
  • The holder disputed the reliability and accessibility of the internet evidence, denied proven disclosure, and maintained that the contested design had novelty and individual character.
  • The Division accepted the web evidence, found D1 disclosed before the filing date, and held that the holder failed to prove the disclosures could not reasonably become known in the sector.
  • Comparing D1 with the contested design, the Division found the similarities in helmet, body, proportions and colour scheme dominated the weapon differences, producing the same overall impression.
  • The application was upheld under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4(1) and 6(1)(b), so the RCD was declared invalid and further grounds were not examined.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO

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
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