Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-06-12
R1002/2018-3
Contested design: 001431829-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder is ordered to bear the invalidity applicants' costs, fixed at EUR 1 250 each.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicants. 3. Fixes the amount of fees and costs to be paid by the design holder to the two invalidity applicants with respect to the invalidity proceedings and appeal proceedings at EUR 1 250 each.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €2,500
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Mystic Products Import & Export, SLvia PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Carrer Guifre Nº 689, 08918 Badalona, Spain
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Tinnus Enterprises, LLCvia PDF extraction
United States (US)
3429 18th Street, Plano Texas, United States of America
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
Printout from www.arstechnica.com, article entitled 'Bunch O Balloons will revolutionize water fights', published 27 July 2014
www.arstechnica.com · disclosed 2014-07-27
European patent application for 'Bunch O Balloons' fluid distribution equipment filed by design holder on 3 October 2015, published 13 April 2016
EP 3 005 948 A2 · European Patent Office · disclosed 2016-04-13
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder (appellant) challenged the Invalidity Division's finding that all features of the 'Bunch O Balloons' fluid-distribution RCD were solely dictated by technical function under Article 8(1) CDR; it submitted a designer witness statement arguing aesthetic considerations (flower-like appearance, proportions) influenced the design and that the Division wrongly shifted the burden of proof and took into account ultra-vires arguments about single-use products.
- ›Both invalidity applicants (Mystic Products and Koopman International) argued all features — housing, tubes, balloons, elastic bands — were purely functional as confirmed by the design holder's own patent application; the witness statement added no weight, and the Division acted within its discretion.
- ›The Board admitted the designer's witness statement but found it unpersuasive: the patent application views were virtually identical to the RCD, confirming all features served the technical function of simultaneously filling water balloons; aesthetic alternatives did not change the analysis under DOCERAM.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the design holder must bear the invalidity applicants' costs totalling EUR 2 500 (EUR 1 250 each).
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberC. Rusconi
- Registrarp.o. I. Romero Conrad
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1006/2018-3 | 2021-07-01 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1005/2018-3 | 2021-07-01 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1007/2018-3 | 2021-06-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1004/2018-3 | 2021-06-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1011/2018-3 | 2021-06-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1003/2018-3 | 2021-06-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R0510/2019-3 | 2020-04-02 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R0740/2018-3 | 2020-02-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |