Invalidity · first instance · 2021-10-21
000113842
Contested design: 008028385-0002
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, the contested Community design is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Dem Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung wird stattgegeben. 2. Das eingetragene Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster Nr. 0080283850002 wird für nichtig erklärt. 3. Die Inhaberin trägt die Kosten, die auf 750 EUR festgesetzt werden.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
LEGO Juris A/Svia PDF extraction
Denmark (DK)
Koldingvej 2, 7190 Dänemark
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Guangdong Xingbao Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.
China (CN)
Longtan Industrial Area, Shangxiang Village, Lianshang Town, Chenghai District, Shantou City, Guangdong Province, Voklsrepublik China
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
LEGO Ariel minifigure toy figure offered for sale online
https://www.brickowl.com/catalog/lego-ariel-minifigure-227880 · brickowl.com
international design protecting the form of LEGO minifigures
DM 0076470
practically identical toy-figure design filed in China
202030139967.4 · China · disclosed 2020-04-10
identical toy-figure design filed in Ukraine
42274 · Ukraine · disclosed 2020-05-26
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character, relying mainly on the earlier LEGO Ariel figure disclosed online as D1 and also referring to international design DM 0076470.
- ›The holder argued the contested design was new and had individual character, denied any unfair appropriation, and claimed the toy-figure sector showed a saturated pattern vocabulary.
- ›The Division treated the later-invoked China and Ukraine designs as inadmissible and dismissed the unfair-behaviour allegations as outside the available invalidity grounds.
- ›It accepted the Brickowl webpage as prior disclosure under Article 7(1) and found broad designer freedom for toy figures, with the shared proportions and shape features outweighing the differences.
- ›The contested design created the same overall impression as D1, so it lacked individual character; the application was upheld and the holder was ordered to pay EUR 750 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
- MemberIvanka IVANOVA
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000131885 vs Zhenkai Cui | 2026-04-30 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000129622 vs Squar3D Aps | 2026-04-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000129681 vs Squar3D Aps | 2026-04-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000126976 vs Dohány Kft. | 2026-04-08 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000131547 vs Brandworl Management Co., Limited | 2026-04-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000131507 vs Shenzhen Chenyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. | 2026-03-31 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000130128 vs joboo GmbH | 2026-02-03 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000130086 vs CROSS BORDEP (HK) CO., LIMITED | 2026-02-02 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |