Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-08-11
R1731/2022-3
Contested design: 002526699-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs incurred by the design holder.
Show verbatim operative text(fr)
1 Le recours est rejeté. 2 La demanderesse en nullité devra supporter les frais engagés par la titulaire du dessin ou modèle.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
DELTA-SPORT Handelskontor GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Wragekamp 6, 22397 Hamburg, Allemagne
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
DECATHLONvia PDF extraction
France (FR)
Service Juridique PI 4, boulevard de Mons, 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq, France
Prior art cited (7)
French patent application for a full-face diving mask relied on for technical function and lack of individual character.
FR 2 720 050 · BOPI · disclosed 1995-11-24
European patent fascicle for the diving mask relied on to argue the contested design was purely technical.
EP 3 140 186 B1 · European patent
German Decathlon website extracts and translations citing technical and marketing statements about the mask.
www.decathlon.de · decathlon.de
French Decathlon website extract cited for statements about the mask and its technical conception.
www.decathlon.fr · decathlon.fr
2018 online diving-mask test overview cited regarding market presentations of similar products.
www.expertentesten.de · expertentesten.de
German utility models derived from EP 3 140 186 B1 and relied on to support the technical-function argument.
DE 20 2014 010 957 U1; DE 20 2014 011 182 U1 · Germany
Screen capture from the Subea website submitted with the appeal observations.
www.subea.com · subea.com
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing that all essential features of the full-face diving mask were dictated solely by technical function and that FR 2 720 050 destroyed individual character.
- ›The holder replied that the oval frame and X-shaped head strap reflected aesthetic choices, alternative mask designs existed, and its design-development evidence showed the Easybreath mask was not purely technical.
- ›The Board held that the patents, utility models, and marketing materials did not prove every appearance feature was exclusively functional; at least the oval frame and X-shaped strap reflected non-technical design choices.
- ›The Board also found the earlier French patent created a different overall impression, especially because of the frame shape and head attachment, so the contested design remained individually distinctive and the appeal failed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- MemberM. Bra
- MemberS. Rizzo
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0952/2021-3 | 2024-09-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2140/2023-3 | 2024-08-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2585/2023-3 | 2024-08-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1745/2023-3 | 2024-06-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |