Invalidity · first instance · 2022-08-18
000116987
Contested design: 005313400-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 005313400-0001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Chyk SARLvia PDF extraction
France (FR)
7, Avenue Paul Heroult, 13015 Marseille, France
Represented by
Christelle Grenier
Holder · RCD owner
Tee Turtle, LLC
United States (US)
6200 Pershall Rd., Hazelwood Missouri 63042, United States of America
Represented by
Prior art cited (8)
stylised octopus plush toy
Chinese design patent No 201530502323.6 · DesignView / China · disclosed 2016-06-15
stylised octopus plush toy
Chinese design patent No 201430470884.8 · DesignView / China · disclosed 2015-05-20
stylised octopus plush toy
Chinese design patent No 200930144320.4 · DesignView / China · disclosed 2010-05-19
stylised octopus plush toy
US design patent No D500537 · DesignView / United States · disclosed 2005-01-04
stylised octopus plush toy
French registered design No 072382-005 · DesignView / France · disclosed 2007-12-14
stylised octopus plush toy
French registered design No 071293-0043 · DesignView / France · disclosed 2007-07-27
stylised octopus plush toy
French registered design No 976454-0005 · DesignView / France · disclosed 1998-03-06
stylised octopus plush toy
Chinese design patent No 201630173183.7 · DesignView / China · disclosed 2016-09-28
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over eight earlier octopus toy designs, especially D1 to D3.
- ›The holder argued the contested design was a reversible toy with two discernible configurations, a feature absent from all cited prior designs.
- ›The Invalidity Division found the protected design included two alternative configurations and that this difference was not an immaterial detail for novelty purposes.
- ›The Division also found those two stages of use gave the contested design a different overall impression on the informed user, so invalidity was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberIvanka IVANOVA
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000128896 vs Sc Pitikot Store Srl | 2025-08-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000124438 vs АУТДОР ПЛЕЙ | 2025-04-03 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000126927 vs Jiujiang Storm E-Commerce Co., Ltd. | 2025-03-25 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000121616 vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o. | 2024-05-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000121617 vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o. | 2024-05-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000121615 vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o. | 2024-05-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000114244 vs UTILIS | 2024-01-09 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000121427 vs Jinhua Baiwei Plastic Products Co., Ltd. | 2023-11-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |