The office found that the face of our client’s doll is nearly identical to the one presented in the disputed design as if it was modelled after the same person. In EUIPO’s opinion, the minor differences between the client’s doll and the industrial design are insufficient to find that they are faces of two different people.
The designer’s freedom of such an industrial design is only slightly limited, as the head of an anthropomorphic doll need only resemble a human head. The designer thus had great leeway and could have created the head of a doll with almost any shape or skin colour, of any race, size or gender. The office also pointed out that the proportions of the facial features of the dolls presented in the case are not the same as people’s. This further increases the freedom of the designer, who could shape the dolls’ facial features in a range of ways.
The decision is not yet legally final.