DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001810532-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-08-29

000115464

Contested design: 001810532-0004

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 001810532-0004 is declared invalid. 2. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Guangdong Qman Toys Industry Co.,Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Intersection of West Side of Xingye West 2nd Road and North Side of Xingye South Road, Laimei Industrial Zone, Chenghai District, Shantou, Guangdong 515000, China

Represented by

VON BÜLOW & TAMADA

Holder · RCD owner

Lego A/S

Denmark (DK)

Aastvej 1, 7190 Billund, Denmark

Represented by

BOMHARD IP, S.L.

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure

prior building block bracket design from the holder’s toy construction system

Lego Bracket 2436 · www.bricklink.com

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 8(1)Article 8(3)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character over an earlier disclosed Lego bracket design and argued that the contested block’s features were solely dictated by technical function.
  • The holder argued the earlier design created a different overall impression, denied that Article 8(1) applied, and relied on the modular-system exception in Article 8(3).
  • The Division found the contested design could not be invalidated under Article 8(1) because the modular-system exception in Article 8(3) applied to the interconnection features relied on.
  • The earlier Bricklink disclosure was accepted, and the Division found the prior design produced the same overall impression on the informed user, destroying individual character under Article 6(1)(b).
  • The application was upheld, the contested design was declared invalid, and the holder was ordered to bear the applicant’s fixed costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ

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