Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-06-09
R1003/2018-3
Contested design: 001431829-0010
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant’s costs, and those costs are fixed at EUR 1,250.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant. 3. Fixes the costs to be paid by the design holder to the invalidity applicant for the invalidity and the appeal proceedings at EUR 1 250.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €1,250
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)
Ars Technica article “Bunch O Balloons will revolutionise water fights” showing the product
www.arstechnica.com · disclosed 2014-07-27
European patent application showing the same technical solution for filling multiple balloons simultaneously
EP 3 005 948 A2 · European Patent Office · disclosed 2016-04-13
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed the invalidation of its fluid-distribution equipment design, arguing that aesthetic considerations also influenced the choice of the product’s features.
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the housing, tubes, balloons, and fasteners were all chosen solely for the technical function of filling multiple balloons simultaneously.
- ›The Board found that the patent application and the objective circumstances confirmed that all relevant features of the contested RCD were solely dictated by technical function within Article 8(1) CDR.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the design holder was ordered to pay the invalidity applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 1,250.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |
| 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 |
| R0865/2017-3 | 2020-01-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |