Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-11-18
R1669/2023-3
Contested design: 008500755-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holders' costs in both the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
Dismisses the appeal; Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holders in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Innersloth LLCvia PDF extraction
United States (US)
811 1St Ave, Suite 409, Seattle 98104, United States
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Xiaochuan Kevia PDF extraction
France (FR)
267 Jayde Overpass, Sault, France
Prior art cited (3)
figurative mark relied on as a prior Crewmate design
EUTM No 18 384 100 · European Union Trade Mark Bulletin · disclosed 2021-03-16
figurative mark 'AMONG US' relied on as a prior Crewmate design
EUTM No 18 384 099 · European Union Trade Mark Bulletin · disclosed 2021-03-16
'Among Us Crewmate' copyright registration invoked as prior design disclosure
US copyright registration No VA 2 248 503 · uspto.report/copyright / U.S. Copyright Office
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The appellant argued the contested toy reproduced its Crewmate design and conflicted with earlier EUTMs and copyright, and asked the Board to admit annexes omitted below for technical reasons.
- ›The design holders filed no observations in response to the appeal.
- ›The Board admitted some late evidence but refused new prior designs raised only on appeal because that would impermissibly expand the subject matter of the invalidity case.
- ›The Board found D1 and D2 disclosed but creating different overall impressions, found no similarity or use for Article 25(1)(e), found the copyright claim unclear and unproven, and dismissed the appeal.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deGerman | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | human 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1263/2021-3 | 2023-02-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1663/2020-3 | 2022-08-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(e) | — | 9 |
| R2283/2019-3 | 2021-02-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R2349/2019-3 | 2020-09-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1648/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1649/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1650/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1142/2018-3 | 2019-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 9 |