DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015069641-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-03-31

000126961

Contested design: 015069641-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 015069641-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

NPD Partnership Ltdvia PDF extraction

United Kingdom (GB)

Hayles Bridge Offices. 228 Mulgrave road Cheam, Surrey SM2 6JT, United Kingdom

Represented by

The Legal Group

Holder · RCD owner

Yimin Wang

China (CN)

No.14, Lane 9, North Wen'an Road, TuChi Village, FengXiang Street, Chenghai District, Shantou City, Guangdong Province, China

Represented by

Emilio Zeininger

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure

Tapple board game

boardgamegeek.com · boardgamegeek.com

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicants sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on their earlier Tapple board-game design disclosed online in 2012.
  • They argued both designs share the same round wheel, 20 buttons, central hand-marked button, and five connecting bridges.
  • The holder obtained time extensions but filed no substantive observations, so the invalidity application was undefended on the merits.
  • The Division accepted the boardgamegeek.com disclosure, found at least average design freedom, and held the overall impressions effectively identical for the informed user.
  • The application was upheld, the contested design was declared invalid, and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberEmmanuel COLLIN

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