Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-08-11
R1732/2022-3
Contested design: 002340224-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs incurred by the design holder.
Show verbatim operative text(fr)
Le recours est rejeté. 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 showing a full-face snorkelling mask
FR 2 720 050 · BOPI · disclosed 1995-11-24
European patent relating to a full-face snorkelling mask
EP 3 140 186 B1
Decathlon website extracts advertising the Easybreath mask and its technical-functional features
www.decathlon.de; www.decathlon.fr · decathlon.de / decathlon.fr
2018 online test overview of diving masks
www.expertentesten.de · expertentesten.de
German utility model relating to the holder's snorkelling mask
DE 20 2014 010 957 U1 · Germany
German utility model relating to the holder's snorkelling mask
DE 20 2014 011 182 U1 · Germany
Screenshot of the holder's Subea website for the mask
www.subea.com · subea.com
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing that the contested Easybreath design was wholly dictated by technical function and lacked individual character over FR 2 720 050 and related filings.
- ›The holder responded that aesthetic choices shaped the mask, alternative full-face snorkelling masks existed, and the French patent drawings differed materially from the contested design.
- ›The Board held that the applicant had not shown every appearance feature was exclusively functional; the oval frame and X-shaped head strap reflected non-technical design choices supported by alternative masks and design-development evidence.
- ›The Board also found the earlier French patent disclosure produced a different overall impression, especially in the frame shape, head attachment, snorkel cap, nose area, inner skirt, and colours.
- ›The appeal was dismissed, the rejection of the invalidity application was confirmed, and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear the holder's costs.
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 |