DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006083341-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-06-29

000109441

Contested design: 006083341-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0060833410001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s 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

GuangDong Qman Culture Communication Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Unit 0811, 24F, Central Tower, No.5 Xiancun Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou (Guangdong) 510623, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Von Bülow & Tamada

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureD1

LEGO figurine offer page

http://amazon.co.uk; ASIN B01K8XHM2W · Amazon · disclosed 2016-08-11

Trade markD2

3D mark depicting a LEGO figurine

European Union trade mark registration No 50 450 · EUTMs Bulletin · disclosed 1999-11-22

Trade markD3

3D mark depicting a LEGO figurine

European Union trade mark registration No 50 518 · EUTMs Bulletin · disclosed 1999-11-15

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the contested toy figure lacked individual character over its earlier LEGO minifigure disclosures and also conflicted with earlier 3D EUTMs.
  • The holder argued the applicant was monopolising a design style, the informed user would notice differences, and technical constraints and market saturation limited design freedom.
  • The Division accepted the earlier EUTM figurines as disclosed prior designs, found design freedom not substantially limited, and held the shared body, limbs, studs, slots and clamps outweighed the head differences.
  • The application succeeded under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6, so the RCD was invalidated without examining the Article 25(1)(e) ground further.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE

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