DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001284608-0008

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-01-29

000120558

Contested design: 001284608-0008

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay 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 001284608-0008 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

DoubleEagle Industry (China) Ltd.via PDF extraction

Hong Kong (HK)

Unit B 8/F, Henfa Commercial Building, 348-350 Lockhart Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

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)

Prior use

Angle Plate 1x2 - 2x2 / Bracket toy building block

LEGO element No 92411 / 44728; set No 4993 "Cool Convertible" · Brickset / BrickLink / LEGO set release in the United Kingdom · disclosed 2008-06-07

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character, arguing the contested LEGO bracket reproduced an earlier 2008 toy building block and that the only difference was technically driven.
  • The holder disputed the prior-art evidence and argued the designs were structurally inverted, with differences in studs, mounting elements, and surfaces that the informed user would immediately perceive.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the earlier design from the combined Brickset and BrickLink evidence and found the underside depiction clear enough for comparison under Article 7(1) CDR.
  • It held that the designer retained meaningful freedom within interoperability constraints and that the inverted thicker plate and smooth thinner plate surface gave the contested design a different overall impression, so the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK

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
000130341

vs Mortensen Software Consulting ApS

2026-05-27Art 25(1)(b)217
000129371

vs joboo GmbH

2026-05-05Art 25(1)(b)217
000129621

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29Art 25(1)(b)217
000129624

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29Art 25(1)(b)217
000129661

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29Art 25(1)(b)217
000130709

vs Shantou Chenghai district Shuangjia plastic toy factory

2026-02-26Art 25(1)(b)217
000128937

vs Liyou Industrial Co., Ltd

2026-02-24Art 25(1)(b)217
000130683

vs Shengzhi Jiang

2026-02-23Art 25(1)(b)217