DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006083341-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-06-29

000109442

Contested design: 006083341-0002

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 0060833410002 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 printout

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

Trade markD2

3D figurine mark

EUTM No 50 450 · EUTMs Bulletin · disclosed 1999-11-22

Trade markD3

3D figurine mark

EUTM No 50 518 · EUTMs Bulletin · disclosed 1999-11-15

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the toy figure lacked individual character over its earlier LEGO minifigure disclosures and also conflicted with earlier 3D EUTMs.
  • The holder said the applicant claimed an unprotectable style, designer freedom was limited by functional brick-figure constraints, and the head and body differences changed the overall impression.
  • The Division treated the earlier 3D EUTM as a disclosed prior design, found broad designer freedom for humanoid brick-figure toys, and held the shared body, limbs, studs, slots and clamps dominated the comparison.
  • The contested design did not create a different overall impression from D2, so it lacked individual character and was declared invalid; the Division did not examine the remaining grounds 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