DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008028385-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-10-25

000113601

Contested design: 008028385-0003

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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. 0080283850003 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

Bomhard IP, S.L.

Holder · RCD owner

Guangdong Xingbao Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Longtan Industrial Area, Shangxiang Village, Lianshang Town, Chenghai District, Shantou City, Guangdong Province, Volksrepublik China

Represented by

Nlo Schieldmark B.V.

Prior art cited (3)

International designD1

toy figure

DM/076470-0020 · International Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-08-31

National design⚠ rejected as evidence

practically identical toy figure design filed in China

202030140689.4 · China

National design⚠ rejected as evidence

identical toy figure design filed in Ukraine

42275 · Ukraine

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character, relying mainly on earlier international design D1 for a toy figure and arguing the contested design created the same overall impression.
  • The holder argued the design was new and had individual character, denied any unfair copying, and claimed a crowded toy-figure design field made the differences more significant.
  • The Division treated the later-invoked China and Ukraine designs as inadmissible, accepted D1 as properly disclosed, and found no proven market saturation affecting the informed user's perception.
  • Despite some detail differences, the shared proportions and core features produced the same overall impression as D1, so the contested design lacked individual character and was invalidated.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload 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