DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008371512-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-07-15

000115970

Contested design: 008371512-0001

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

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 008371512-0001 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

Guangdong Loongon Animation & Culture Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

The east of Ningchuanbei Road and the north of Dengfeng Road, Chenghai New District, Chenghai Shantou, Guangdong, China

Represented by

Maria Alicia Izquierdo Blanco

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosure

toy figure "LEGO Set fig-006172 Harry Potter, Open Dark Blue Jacket, Medium Legs"

https://rebrickable.com/minifigs/fig-006172/harry-potter-open-dark-blue-jacket-medium-legs/#parts · rebrickable.com; 2019 LEGO trade catalogue

Trade mark

earlier EUTM cited under Article 25(1)(e) CDR

EUTM No 50 450

Trade mark

earlier EUTM cited under Article 25(1)(e) CDR

EUTM No 50 518

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character over earlier toy-figure disclosures and also invoked earlier EUTM rights under Article 25(1)(e) CDR.
  • The holder argued the figures created different overall impressions, several shared features were common or technically driven, and the toy-figure sector was crowded.
  • The Division found the earlier LEGO figure had been disclosed before the filing date, the designer's freedom was at least average, and the similarities outweighed the minor differences.
  • The contested design produced the same overall impression as the earlier design, so it lacked individual character and the application was upheld without examining the alternative ground.

Deciding panel

  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENÉ

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
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