DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003476118-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-06-29

000107945

Contested design: 003476118-0003

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 003476118-0003 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 (1)

Web disclosure

Sleven Ninjago minifigure toy figure

https://en.brickipedia.org · Brickipedia; BrickLink; BrickOwl; eBay · disclosed 2015-01-02

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 novelty and individual character, and also invoked Article 25(1)(e), arguing the contested toy figure copied its earlier Sleven Ninjago minifigure launched in 2015.
  • The holder disputed disclosure and reliability of the internet evidence, argued the design retained novelty and individual character, and submitted an unrelated Bulgarian unfair-competition judgment.
  • The Invalidity Division admitted the applicant's additional Brickipedia evidence, rejected the holder's manipulation objections, and found the earlier Sleven design had been publicly disclosed online in early 2015.
  • Comparing the figures, the Division found the shared snake-head helmet, body proportions, and colour scheme outweighed the weapon difference, so the contested design created the same overall impression.
  • The application was upheld under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4(1) and 6(1)(b); the RCD was declared invalid and the holder was ordered to pay costs.

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