DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015080694-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-01-30

000130710

Contested design: 015080694-0001

EUDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, EU design No 015080694-0001 is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 720.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered EU design No 015080694-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 720.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €720

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

NPD Partnership Ltdvia PDF extraction

United Kingdom (GB)

Surrey, United Kingdom

Represented by

The Legal Group

Holder · RCD owner

Tao Zhu

China (CN)

Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Represented by

Metida

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure

wheel design from the 'Pim Pam Pet The Battle' / 'Tapple' alphabetical gameboard marketed by Jumbo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06PyvBCIr2Y · YouTubeNL / Jumbo Nederland B.V., corroborated by BoardGameGeek, Bol.com screenshots and TÜV Rheinland certificate

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicants argued the contested gameboard lacked individual character because an earlier alphabetical game wheel had been created in 2011 and marketed in 2012 under names including 'Pim Pam Pet The Battle' and 'Tapple'.
  • The holder filed no observations or evidence in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found no single annex proved disclosure alone, but the annexes taken together objectively established public disclosure of the earlier wheel on YouTubeNL in 2012/2013 before the filing date.
  • Given at least average design freedom, the shared disc shape, central palm-imprinted button, intermediate bridges and 20 perimeter buttons created the same overall impression despite differences in the unseen bottom and side views.
  • The application was upheld because the contested design lacked individual character under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6 EUDR, and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberCarlos MATEO PÉREZ

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