DesignVerdict
← 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

Robits

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
000130844

vs Lego A/S

2026-06-30Art 25(1)(b)217
000072551

vs Lv Cheng Liang

2026-06-26Art 25(1)(b)217
000129541

vs ITALTRIKE S.R.L.

2026-06-23Art 25(1)(b)217
000129524

vs ITALTRIKE S.R.L.

2026-06-23Art 25(1)(b)217
000129509

vs ITALTRIKE S.R.L.

2026-06-23Art 25(1)(b)217
000129525

vs ITALTRIKE S.R.L.

2026-06-23Art 25(1)(b)217
000129510

vs ITALTRIKE S.R.L.

2026-06-23Art 25(1)(b)217
000129511

vs ITALTRIKE S.R.L.

2026-06-23Art 25(1)(b)217