Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-07-01
R1005/2018-3
Contested design: 001431829-0006
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder must bear the invalidity applicants’ costs, fixed at EUR 1,250 for each applicant.
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 costs and fees to be paid by the design holder to the invalidity applicants for the invalidity and the 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)
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 design, arguing that aesthetic considerations also influenced the product’s appearance and that the design remained individually distinctive.
- ›The two invalidity applicants argued that all relevant features were chosen only to perform the technical function of filling multiple balloons simultaneously and relied on the patent material and earlier disclosure evidence.
- ›The Board found that the objective evidence showed the contested design’s essential features were solely dictated by technical function within Article 8(1) CDR, so the appeal failed without any need to overturn the invalidation.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the design holder was ordered to pay EUR 1,250 to each invalidity applicant for invalidity and appeal costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | 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 |
| R1004/2018-3 | 2021-06-16 | 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 |
| 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 |
| R0865/2017-3 | 2020-01-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |