DesignVerdict
← Back to search
Contested design 001102230-0005

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-06-23

000129541

Contested design: 001102230-0005

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity of EU design No 001102230-0005 is rejected; the applicant bears the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(it)

1. La domanda di dichiarazione di nullità del disegno o modello dell'UE registrato n. 001102230-0005 è respinta. 2. La richiedente sopporta l'onere delle spese del titolare, fissate a 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

BLS Basteln, Lernen, Spielen GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Forchtenberg, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Italtrike s.r.l.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Paderno del Grappa, Italy

Prior art cited (1)

National design

Véhicule jouet: autobus type 'Chausson' (toy vehicle/bus)

No 58572-001 · French designs bulletin (Bollettino dei disegni e modelli francesi) · disclosed 1958-05-09

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 6(1)(b)Article 7

Argument summary

  • Applicant challenged toy vehicle design (RCD 001102230-0005) for lack of individual character over French national design No 58572-001 ('Véhicule jouet: autobus type Chausson'), deposited 1953, published May 1958; argued wide designer freedom and that both designs share the same essential features, proportions, and overall impression.
  • Holder contested the use of undated supplementary images of the prior design submitted by the applicant and argued the designs produce clearly different overall impressions due to differences in shape, proportions, structural configuration, and ornamental elements.
  • Division accepted the 1958 bulletin as sufficient proof of disclosure but excluded undated additional images; noted the contested design registered in seven views while the prior art showed only one front view, so unshown features count as differences.
  • Differences in body proportions (prior design considerably more elongated), T-handle thickness, number/decoration of windows (7 vs 4), wheel cover, and front/side decoration were sufficient to produce a different overall impression on the informed user; application rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberChiara BORACE
  • MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
  • MemberJessica N. LEWIS

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianoriginalDownload 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
000129509

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
000129510

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
000129511

vs ITALTRIKE S.R.L.

2026-06-23Art 25(1)(b)217
000130341

vs Mortensen Software Consulting ApS

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