DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015095621-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-02-23

000130721

Contested design: 015095621-0002

EUDR

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

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered EU design No 0150956210002 is rejected. 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

toy figure (hockey player)

EU design No 0025978150017 · EUIPO eSearch database · disclosed 2015-10-05

Registered RCDD2

toy figure (hockey player)

EU design No 0025978150012 · EUIPO eSearch database · disclosed 2015-10-05

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

Power Planet toy figure web disclosures

Google search results and product websites including Made-in-China · disclosed 2023-11-15

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 25(1)(e)Article 25(1)(f)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity based on earlier EU designs, alleged Power Planet internet disclosures, earlier PLAYMOBIL trade marks, and German copyright in the PLAYMOBIL figure.
  • Holder filed no observations and left the application undefended.
  • The Division accepted disclosure only of D1 and D2, found broad design freedom for toy figures, and held the contested military figure created a different overall impression from the prior hockey-player designs.
  • It also found the cited marks insufficiently similar or weakly distinctive for confusion, and the copyright claim insufficiently substantiated because the national law and protected work were not identified with the required precision.
  • The application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in fixed representation 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
000130723

vs Shengzhi Jiang

2026-02-23Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(e)2111
000130722

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
000130684

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