DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009011992-0005

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-04-29

000129624

Contested design: 009011992-0005

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 009011992-0005 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)

Web disclosureAnnexes 2 and 3⚠ rejected as evidence

Article titled 'TOY^2 Track Connectors Review' showing the holder's earlier Toy^2 Track Connectors, including the flat straight-ahead block.

https://legebyen.dk · 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

  • Applicant sought invalidity under Articles 25, 5, 6 and 8 EUDR, arguing the connector's features were function-driven and that prior online disclosures destroyed novelty and individual character.
  • Holder replied that the cited disclosures did not show the contested design, the design retained non-technical visual choices, and alternative connectors existed on the market.
  • The Division found the product formed part of a modular system, so Article 8(3) EUDR could preserve protection despite interconnection arguments under Article 8.
  • The alleged prior designs were not identified and reproduced with sufficient clarity to prove disclosure under Article 7 EUDR, making comparison impossible.
  • Because the evidence did not establish the invoked invalidity grounds, the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberEmmanuel COLLIN

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
000129661

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29Art 25(1)(b)217
000129621

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