Invalidity · first instance · 2022-02-21
000116492
Contested design: 008485536-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0084855360001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Bubbly Blaster LLCvia PDF extraction
United States (US)
7321 Rindge Ave, Playa Del Rey, 90293 California, United States of America
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Zhejiang Qili Supply Chain Management Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
1st Floor, No.888 Tongbao Road, Jiangdong Street, Yiwu City, Zhejiang Province, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Maria Pastor Palomares
Prior art cited (6)
Bubbly Blaster Sprayer shown on archived website
http://bubblyblaster.com; https://web.archive.org snapshot dated 2018-06-28 · Wayback Machine · disclosed 2018-06-28
Champagne sprayer invention with graphical illustrations of the outer appearance
US 10,336,526 B1 · United States patent publication · disclosed 2019-07-02
Military standard on Picatinny accessory mounting rails
MIL-STD-1913 (AR) · Military Standard · disclosed 1995-02-03
Internet article explaining the use of Picatinny rails on handguns
Where Do you Use Picatinny Rails
Image of a champagne gun
Twitter post by Demi Cassiani dated 2016-03-15 · Twitter · disclosed 2016-03-15
Hasbro Super Soaker sprayer-gun example
https://eu.ustoday.com · US Today website · disclosed 2020-08-20
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant argued the contested sparkling-wine spray gun copied its earlier Bubbly Blaster and was invalid because its features were technically dictated and it lacked individual character over earlier disclosures.
- ›Holder filed no observations and left the invalidity application undefended.
- ›The Division held the technical-function objection was not sufficiently supported because the patent did not establish that all essential appearance features were solely dictated by function.
- ›The US patent was accepted as prior disclosure, and the contested design was found to create the same overall impression despite minor differences such as rails and the valve shape.
- ›The application was upheld in full; the contested design was declared invalid for lack of individual character and the holder was ordered to pay costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| 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 ↗ |
Locarno classes
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000131944 vs Jinsong Liu | 2026-04-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000128757 vs Axue Jin | 2026-03-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000127246 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-03-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000127279 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-03-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000127243 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-03-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000127245 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-03-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000127244 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-03-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000127241 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-02-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |