DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009011992-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-04-29

000129621

Contested design: 009011992-0001

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered EU design No 0090119920001 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

Robitsvia PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

Kortrijk, Belgium

Represented by

De Clercq & Partners

Holder · RCD owner

Squar3D Aps

Denmark (DK)

Hadsten, Denmark

Represented by

Niels Uth

Prior art cited (2)

PublicationAnnexes 2 and 3⚠ rejected as evidence

Article on legebyen.dk showing the alleged prior design 'round swing block'.

TOY^2 Track Connectors Review · legebyen.dk · disclosed 2021-03-10

Web disclosureAnnex 4⚠ rejected as evidence

Wayback Machine capture of the holder's website allegedly showing Toy^2 Track Connectors.

https://squar3d.dk · Wayback Machine · disclosed 2020-11-18

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7Article 8(1)Article 8(2)Article 8(3)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character and argued that all design features were dictated by technical function and interconnection requirements.
  • The holder replied that the cited disclosures showed earlier, different designs and that the contested design retained aesthetic choices and design freedom beyond pure function.
  • The Invalidity Division held that Article 8(3) could protect the design as part of a modular system and that the applicant's evidence did not clearly disclose a prior design for comparison under Article 7.
  • Because disclosure of the invoked prior design was not proven and the technical-function case failed, the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

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
000130341

vs Mortensen Software Consulting ApS

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

vs joboo GmbH

2026-05-05Art 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
000130684

vs Shengzhi Jiang

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