DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015095621-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-02-23

000130684

Contested design: 015095621-0004

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder’s fixed costs of EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered EU design No 015095621-0004 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

geobra Brandstätter Stiftung & Co. KGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Zirndorf, Germany

Represented by

Sebastian Eckhardt

Holder · RCD owner

Shengzhi Jiang

China (CN)

Shantou City, Guangdong Province, China

Represented by

Emilio Zeininger

Prior art cited (3)

Registered RCDD1

hockey player toy figure

EU design No 002597815-0017 · EUIPO eSearch database · disclosed 2015-10-05

Registered RCDD2

hockey player toy figure

EU design No 002597815-0012 · EUIPO eSearch database · disclosed 2015-10-05

Web disclosureAnnexes A.8-A.23⚠ rejected as evidence

Power Planet toy figure and toy set disclosures referenced from websites including Made-in-China

Power Planet online listings and Google image search results · Made-in-China website and related online listings · disclosed 2023-11-15

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 25(1)(e)Article 25(1)(f)

Argument summary

  • The applicant attacked the design for lack of novelty and individual character, conflict with earlier PLAYMOBIL trade marks, and unauthorised use of copyrighted PLAYMOBIL figures.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted disclosure only of D1 and D2, rejected the internet materials as insufficient proof of disclosure, and found the firefighter design created a different overall impression.
  • It also found no likelihood of confusion with the earlier marks and held the copyright ground insufficiently substantiated because the national law and protected work were not clearly established.
  • The application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberDimitrios ANDRIANOPOULOS

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
000130722

vs Shengzhi Jiang

2026-02-23Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(e)2111
000130721

vs Shengzhi Jiang

2026-02-23Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(e)2111
000130723

vs Shengzhi Jiang

2026-02-23Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(e)2111
000130701

vs Shengzhi Jiang

2026-02-23Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(e)2111
000130683

vs Shengzhi Jiang

2026-02-23Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(e)2111
000119359

vs TECH LIVING LIMITED

2023-06-12Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(e)219
000130341

vs Mortensen Software Consulting ApS

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

vs joboo GmbH

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