DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003476118-0006

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-06-29

000108000

Contested design: 003476118-0006

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 003476118-0006 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

Kai Ninjago sleeveless toy minifigure

Brickipedia, BrickLink, Brick Owl and LEGO Fandom webpages · disclosed 2015-03-24

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character and novelty, and also invoked an earlier right, relying on the earlier Kai Ninjago minifigure disclosed online before December 2016.
  • Holder argued the internet evidence was unreliable or manipulable and did not prove disclosure to the relevant specialised circles; it maintained the contested design was novel and had individual character.
  • The Invalidity Division accepted the supplementary Brickipedia evidence, rejected unsupported manipulation objections, and found the earlier Kai variant had been made available to the public by 24 March 2015.
  • Comparing the figures from the informed user's perspective, the Division found the common body shape, garments, colour scheme and hairstyle outweighed minor differences, so the contested design lacked individual character.
  • The application was upheld in full under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4(1) and 6(1)(b) CDR, without examining the other grounds further.

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