DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006371787-0017

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-07-02

000107323

Contested design: 006371787-0017

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 0063717870017 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

Packaging scene with a black carriage drawn by a Pegasus and two minifigures from LEGO set No 75951.

LEGO Grindelwald's Escape Set No 75951 packaging · Amazon.es, Amazon.com.au, Bricklink, Brickinstructions, Brickowl and Brickipedia · disclosed 2018-07-02

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the contested design copied the packaging scene of LEGO Grindelwald's Escape Set No 75951, disclosed in 2018 through catalogues, Amazon pages and specialist toy websites.
  • The holder challenged the reliability, translation and accessibility of the internet evidence and said the contested construction-set design differed from the earlier toy-box layout.
  • The Division accepted the web and catalogue evidence as sufficient disclosure before filing and rejected the holder's manipulation and market-access objections as unsupported.
  • The Division found the designs identical except for immaterial wheel-size and viewing-angle differences, so the contested RCD lacked novelty and was declared invalid.
  • Because the application succeeded in full on novelty, the Division did not examine the separate lack-of-individual-character ground and ordered the holder to bear 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