29 March 2023 (*)

(Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment – Ground for invalidity – Non-compliance with requirements for protection – Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function – Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

In Case T‑535/21,

Tinnus Enterprises LLC,

established in Plano, Texas (United States), represented by T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers,

applicant,

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO),

represented by J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being

Mystic Products Import & Export, SL,

established in Badalona (Spain),

THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber),

composed, at the time of the deliberations, of A. Kornezov, President, E. Buttigieg (Rapporteur) and K. Kowalik-Bańczyk, Judges,

Registrar: A. Juhász-Tóth, Administrator,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

further to the hearing on 8 July 2022,

gives the following

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Tinnus Enterprises LLC, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 June 2021 (Case R 1004/2018-3) (‘the contested decision’).

Background to the dispute

On 13 June 2016, Mystic Products Import & Export, SL filed with EUIPO an application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community design registered under number 1431829-0009 following a multiple application for registration filed by the applicant on 10 March 2015, and which is represented in the following views:

The product to which the design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity was sought is intended to be applied is in Class 23.01 of the Locarno Agreement Establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs of 8 October 1968, as amended, and corresponds to the following description: ‘Fluid distribution equipment’.

The multiple application for registration mentioned in paragraph 2 above included nine other designs which also applied to the product ‘fluid distribution equipment’, and which had also been registered.

The grounds relied on in support of the application for a declaration of invalidity were, inter alia, those set out in Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1), read in conjunction with Article 8(1) of that regulation.

The applicant for a declaration of invalidity claimed, inter alia, that all the features of appearance of the product concerned were solely dictated by its technical function and that, consequently, the contested design was not eligible for any protection.

On 30 April 2018, the Invalidity Division declared the contested design invalid on the basis of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 8(1) of that regulation.

On 31 May 2018, the applicant filed a notice of appeal with EUIPO against the decision of the Invalidity Division.

On 7 January 2020, the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO adopted an interim decision pursuant to which it stayed the appeal proceedings pending the General Court’s final judgment in the action brought by the applicant against the Board of Appeal’s decision in a parallel case (R 1002/2018-3) declaring invalid a design registered under number 1431829-0001 which had been included in the multiple application for registration referred to in paragraph 4 above.

By judgment of 18 November 2020, Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO – Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment) (T‑574/19, EU:T:2020:543), the General Court dismissed the action referred to in paragraph 9 above.

By order of 5 May 2021, Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO (C‑29/21 P, not published, EU:C:2021:357), the Court of Justice did not allow the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of the General Court, referred to in paragraph 10 above, to proceed.

After having informed the parties of the resumption of the proceedings, the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO upheld the Invalidity Division’s decision and dismissed the appeal referred to in paragraph 8 above. Thus, it upheld the application for a declaration of the contested design’s invalidity on the basis of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 8(1) of that regulation, finding that the design subsisted in features of appearance of the product concerned which were solely dictated by its technical function (paragraph 44 of the contested decision).

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

–annul the contested decision;

–alter the contested decision so that it allows the appeal before the Board of Appeal, dismisses the application for a declaration of the contested design’s invalidity and orders the applicant for a declaration of invalidity to pay the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division;

–order the applicant for a declaration of invalidity to pay the fees and costs incurred by the applicant.

EUIPO contends that the Court should:

–dismiss the action;

–order the applicant to pay the costs.

Law

The applicant relies, in essence, on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002. That plea can be divided into four parts.

The first part, alleging failure to take into account all the features of appearance of the product concerned and breach of the rule on allocation of the burden of proof

The applicant puts forward two complaints.

In the first place, it complains that the Board of Appeal failed to take into account all the features of appearance of the product concerned and thereby infringed Article 3(a) of Regulation No 6/2002. The applicant claims that the Board of Appeal took into account only the ‘essential’ features of appearance of the product concerned, in accordance with paragraph 5.5.1 of the EUIPO document entitled ‘Guidelines for examination of registered Community designs’.

According to the applicant, the features of appearance of the product concerned that were not taken into account by the Board of Appeal are as follows:

–the smooth surface of the hollow tubes, balloons and rings;

–the uniform elongated shape of the uninflated balloons;

–the two groups of balloons;

–the squat-shaped housing with an upper outer rim;

–the hexagonal shape of the array, whereby that array is configured with holes arranged in a corresponding hexagonal shape wherein the hollow tubes are placed in those holes;

–the straight, splayed out, hollow tubes in two different lengths, wherein those lengths are significantly longer than the length of the housing and of the balloons. Those tubes create a slightly curved trapezoidal shape. In addition, those tubes are aligned to form a main body of balloons, when viewed from below, surrounded by the ends of those individual hollow tubes sticking out in all directions;

–the rings being each a single band on the neck of each balloon;

–the same contrast of the balloons, housing and tubes.

In the second place, the applicant complains that the Board of Appeal breached the rule on allocation of the burden of proof, according to which it is for the applicant for a declaration of invalidity to identify all of the features of appearance of the product concerned and to demonstrate that they are solely dictated by its technical function. According to the applicant, the Board of Appeal disregarded the fact that, in the present case, the applicant for a declaration of invalidity failed to carry out such a demonstration.

EUIPO contests the applicant’s arguments.

As regards the first complaint raised by the applicant, it must be borne in mind that Article 3(a) of Regulation No 6/2002 defines ‘design’ as ‘the appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture and/or materials of the product itself and/or its ornamentation’.

Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 provides that a Community design is not to subsist in features of appearance of a product which are solely dictated by its technical function.

It is apparent from recital 10 of Regulation No 6/2002 that Article 8(1) thereof aims to protect technological innovation, which ‘should not be hampered by granting design protection to features dictated solely by a technical function[; it] is understood that this does not entail that a design must have an aesthetic quality’.

It is apparent from the wording of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, of recital 10 of that regulation and of the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C‑395/16, EU:C:2018:172), that the assessment of a Community design in terms of the abovementioned provision comprises the following steps: it is necessary, first, to determine the technical function of the product concerned, second, to analyse the features of appearance of that product within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, which entails the identification of those features, and, third, to examine, in the light of all the relevant objective circumstances, whether those features are solely dictated by the technical function of the product concerned. In other words, it must be examined whether the need to fulfil that technical function is the sole factor that determined the choice by the designer of those features, with considerations of another nature, in particular those related to the visual aspect of that product, having played no role in the choice of those features (judgments of 18 November 2020, Fluid distribution equipment, T‑574/19, EU:T:2020:543, paragraph 23, and of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO – Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set), T‑515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155, paragraph 98).

Furthermore, it is apparent from Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 and from recital 10 thereof that a design must be declared invalid if all the features of its appearance are solely dictated by the technical function of the product concerned by that design. It follows that, if at least one of the features of appearance of the product concerned by a contested design is not solely dictated by the technical function of that product, the design at issue cannot be declared invalid under Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 (judgment of 18 November 2020, Fluid distribution equipment, T‑574/19, EU:T:2020:543, paragraph 24; see also judgment of 24 March 2021, Building block from a toy building set, T‑515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155, paragraph 96 and the case-law cited).

Regulation No 6/2002 does not provide a precise definition of ‘features of appearance of a product’. In the definition of a design in Article 3(a) of that regulation, the term ‘features’ is used in a broad sense, covering all possible aspects of the appearance of a product, in particular the features of the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture or materials of the product itself or its ornamentation. The identification of those features must be carried out on a case-by-case basis and depends on the product concerned (judgment of 18 November 2020, Fluid distribution equipment, T‑574/19, EU:T:2020:543, paragraph 41).

Accordingly, identification of the features of appearance of a product may, depending on the case, and in particular having regard to its degree of complexity, be carried out by means of a simple visual analysis of the design or, on the contrary, be based on a detailed examination in which relevant criteria of assessment are taken into account, such as surveys or expert opinions, or data relating to intellectual property rights conferred previously in respect of the product concerned (see judgment of 18 November 2020, Fluid distribution equipment, T‑574/19, EU:T:2020:543, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited).

It is in the light of those principles that the applicant’s first complaint must be examined.

In paragraphs 32 and 33 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal stated that the product concerned was fluid distribution equipment intended to facilitate water balloon fights and that its function was to fill a number of inflatable balloons at the same time.

In paragraph 34 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal noted that ‘it [was] common ground between the parties’ that the contested design had the following features of appearance:

–a housing with an opening and a number of holes;

–a number of hollow tubes attached to the housing;

–a number of inflatable balloons connected to the ends of the tubes;

–a number of fasteners fixing the balloons to the tubes.

In paragraph 35 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal noted that the four features referred to above corresponded to the component parts of the product concerned and concluded that all those features and arrangement thereof were solely dictated by the technical function of the product concerned.

For the purposes of identifying the features of appearance of the product concerned and assessing whether they are solely dictated by its technical function, the Board of Appeal referred, in paragraph 36 of the contested decision, to European patent application EP 3 005 948 A2 filed in the applicant’s name on 10 March 2015 and published on 13 April 2016 (‘the European patent application’) and, in paragraph 37 of the contested decision, to the article entitled ‘Bunch O Balloons will revolutionise water fights’, with the subtitle ‘The product fills multiple balloons with water simultaneously’, published on 27 July 2014 on the website www.arstechnica.com (‘the “Bunch O Balloons” article’). Those two documents had been submitted during the proceedings before EUIPO in support of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

In the first place, as regards the applicant’s argument that the Board of Appeal failed to take into account, as a feature of appearance of the product concerned, the ‘smooth’ surface of the hollow tubes, balloons and rings, it should be pointed out, first, that that supposedly ‘smooth’ surface is not actually visible on the views of the contested design, and it cannot therefore be classified as a ‘feature of appearance of the product concerned’. Next, as EUIPO correctly notes, the tubes, balloons and fasteners of fluid distribution equipment normally have smooth surfaces, such that that ‘smooth’ surface cannot be considered specific to the product concerned. Consequently, the ‘smooth’ surface cannot be considered, in the present case, to be the result of a specific choice made by the designer of the contested design. That circumstance distinguishes the present case from the case which gave rise to the judgment of 24 March 2021, Building block from a toy building set (T‑515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155), in which the Court held, in paragraph 107, that the smooth surface of the upper face of the product at issue (a toy brick) was a specific feature of appearance of that product and should therefore have been taken into account by the Board of Appeal.

It must therefore be concluded that the Board of Appeal did not err in not mentioning explicitly, in the contested decision, the supposedly ‘smooth’ surface of the hollow tubes, balloons and rings.

In the second place, as regards the applicant’s argument that the Board of Appeal failed to take into account the ‘uniform elongated shape of the uninflated balloons’, it must be held that the Board of Appeal took into account, in paragraphs 34 and 36 of the contested decision, the ‘inflatable’ balloons as a feature of appearance of the product concerned. It should also be noted that the ‘elongated’ shape of the uninflated balloon, referred to by the applicant, is the result of the normal state of an uninflated balloon and not the result of a specific choice made by the designer of the contested design. Therefore, it was not necessary for the Board of Appeal to refer explicitly to that ‘elongated’ shape for it to identify a feature of appearance of the product concerned in relation to the balloons, the reference to ‘inflatable’ balloons being sufficient in that regard. The applicant’s argument must therefore be rejected.

37In the third place, the applicant complains that the Board of Appeal failed to take into account the existence of the ‘two groups of balloons’ and the ‘straight hollow tubes in two different lengths wherein those lengths are significantly longer than the length of the housing and of the balloons’.

In that regard, it should be noted that, in paragraph 36 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal, referring to the European patent application, observes that the hollow tubes are attached to the housing and enable the flow of the fluid. Furthermore, in paragraph 40 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal notes that the European patent application states that the different length of the tubes is intended to prevent crowding and to accommodate more balloons. It can be inferred from the identification of the different lengths of the tubes, which allows more balloons to be accommodated, that the Board of Appeal took into account the existence of ‘two groups of balloons’ and the fact that the tubes were longer than the housing and the balloons.

It should also be noted that the Board of Appeal, while referring to the ‘hollow tubes’, does not use the adjectives ‘straight’ and ‘splayed out’ to describe them, as the applicant does. In that regard, it should first be noted that the tubes do not appear to be ‘straight’, but rather slightly ‘curved’ and ‘splayed out’. The Board of Appeal therefore rightly found the tubes not to be ‘straight’. Furthermore, it should be noted that, in paragraph 38 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal, relying on the European patent application and on the ‘Bunch O Balloons’ article, stated that all the features of the product concerned were meant to be in contact with a fluid, so that their shape, number and position had an impact on the fluid flow and on the inflation of the balloons/containers, which showed their exclusive technical nature. It follows from that analysis of the Board of Appeal and from its reference to the ‘shape’ of the features that it took account of the slightly ‘curved’ and ‘splayed out’ nature of the tubes, which allows the product concerned to accommodate a large number of inflatable balloons.

It can therefore be concluded that, contrary to the applicant’s argument, the Board of Appeal took into account the features referred to in paragraph 36 above.

Furthermore, the Board of Appeal cannot be criticised for not having identified, in the contested decision, the allegedly ‘trapezoidal’ shape of the tubes. That shape is not actually perceptible in the contested design and it is not established that the user of the product concerned will perceive such a shape.

In the fourth place, as regards the applicant’s argument that the Board of Appeal failed to take into account the fact that the rings are ‘each a single band on the neck of each balloon’, it should be pointed out that, in paragraph 36 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal, referring to the European patent application, noted that ‘the elastic fastener or band affixed to the necks of balloons clamp[ed] the balloon to the tube sealing the fluid therein’. It thus appears that the Board of Appeal did take into account the feature referred to above.

In the fifth place, as regards the applicant’s argument that the Board of Appeal failed to take into account the same contrast of the balloons, housing and the tubes, it should be noted that the contested design was represented in the application for registration in black and white – not in colour – and that there was no indication in that representation that the applicant was seeking protection of the ‘features’ referred to above. For that reason, the applicant’s argument must be rejected.

In the sixth place, the applicant complains that the Board of Appeal did not take into account the ‘squat-shaped housing with an upper outer rim’ or the ‘hexagonal shape of the array, whereby that array is configured with holes arranged in a corresponding hexagonal shape wherein the hollow tubes are placed in those holes’.

In that regard, it should be noted that, in paragraph 36 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal, referring to the European patent application, states that ‘the housing can be of cylindrical shape with the first end having an outermost perimeter that is smaller in length than the outermost perimeter of the second end in order to attach a hose, while the second end is attached to the plurality of hollow tubes’. It also states that ‘the hollow tubes are attached to the housing via holes in arrays of concentric circles and enable the fluid to flow through’.

Moreover, in paragraph 38 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal, relying both on the ‘Bunch O Balloons’ article and on the European patent application, stated that all the features of the contested design and their arrangement were solely dictated by a technical function and were necessary for the technical solution of the product concerned on how to fill with water a number of balloons at the same time. According to the Board of Appeal, that becomes more evident when considering that the configuration of all features of that product are meant to be in contact with a fluid, so that the shape, number and position of the features have an impact on the fluid flow and the inflation of the balloons/containers.

It follows from the Board of Appeal’s analysis that the cylindrical shape of the housing is dictated by the cylindrical shape of the water supply (for example, the tap or hosepipe) to which it is attached. That housing has two ends, the first attached to the water supply and the second connected to the tubes that fill the balloons with water. The diameter of the first end results from the diameter of the tap or other fluid supply. The diameter of the second end (which contains the holes) depends on the number of tubes that are attached and, ultimately, the number of balloons that are filled with fluid: the greater the number of tubes that are connected, the greater the diameter of the second end of the housing. It thus appears that the relationship between the diameter of the first end of the housing and the diameter of the second end of the housing represented in this case (which gives the housing a ‘squat-shape’ as the diameter of the first end will be greater than the diameter of the second end) results, according to the Board of Appeal’s analysis, from technical considerations. It is apparent from that analysis by the Board of Appeal that it took into account the ‘squat-shaped housing with an upper outer rim’.

As regards the applicant’s reference to the ‘hexagonal shape of the array’ and to the ‘hexagonal arrangement’ of the holes, it should be recalled that an identification of features of appearance may be based, depending on the particular case, on a multitude of factors and not solely on a simple visual analysis (see paragraph 27 above). In the present case, taking into account the fact that, when the product concerned is used, the housing attaches to the water source, it may be inferred that the ‘hexagonal’ shape of the array and arrangement of the holes will not be noticed by the user of the product concerned and that it does not have a real visual impact capable of classifying it as a ‘feature of appearance’. The Board of Appeal cannot therefore be criticised for not having identified, in the contested decision, the ‘hexagonal’ shape of the array and arrangement of the holes.

On the basis of the considerations set out in paragraphs 44 to 47 above, the applicant’s argument set out in paragraph 43 above must be rejected. It must therefore be concluded that the Board of Appeal took into account all the features of appearance of the product concerned, within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, and, consequently, the applicant’s first complaint must be rejected.

As regards the applicant’s second complaint, according to which the Board of Appeal breached the rule on the allocation of the burden of proof, it should be noted that, according to that rule, when an applicant for a declaration of invalidity refers to the ground of invalidity set out in Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, it is for that applicant to provide evidence to demonstrate that the contested design does not fulfil the requirements of Articles 4 to 9 of that regulation (judgment of 21 September 2017, Easy Sanitary Solutions and EUIPO v Group Nivelles, C‑361/15 P and C‑405/15 P, EU:C:2017:720, paragraph 60). Once that obligation has been fulfilled, it is then for the holder of the contested design to produce counter-arguments and evidence demonstrating why the contested design should not be declared invalid. The final outcome depends on an evaluation of all the facts, arguments and evidence provided by the parties as is required by Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002.

That rule on the allocation of the burden of proof was applied correctly by the Board of Appeal in the contested decision, as is apparent from paragraph 31 thereof. In so far as the applicant for a declaration of invalidity in the present case provided reliable and solid arguments and evidence supporting its argument that all the features of appearance of the product concerned were dictated by its technical function, it was for the applicant, as holder of the contested design, to produce arguments and evidence to the contrary. As EUIPO rightly notes, the holder of the contested design is best placed to provide information as to the creation of the contested design and the features of appearance of the product to which that design applies. Accordingly, if that proprietor is of the view that the applicant for a declaration of invalidity has not identified all the features of appearance of the product concerned, it is for it to specify before the departments of EUIPO the unidentified features for which protection is sought.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the applicant’s second complaint and, consequently, the first part of the plea must be rejected.

The second part, alleging the incorrect application of the criteria set out in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C‑395/16), for the purposes of determining whether the features of appearance of the product concerned are covered by Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002

67It must therefore be held that the Board of Appeal took into account in the present case the existence of alternative designs of the contested design and that its analysis in that regard is not vitiated by error.

68In the light of the foregoing considerations, the second part of the plea must be rejected.

The third part, alleging the application of an incorrect legal test in the context of the assessment of the contested design under Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002

69The applicant complains that the Board of Appeal endorsed, in the contested decision, the Invalidity Division’s analysis which sought to determine whether any feature of appearance of the product concerned ‘enhance[d] the product’s appearance’. According to the applicant, that test for the application of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 is incorrect.

70The applicant also complains that the Board of Appeal focused its analysis on the components of the product concerned rather than on the features of its appearance and that it upheld the Invalidity Division’s finding that the product concerned was a single-use disposable product and thus had limited aesthetic value.

71EUIPO contests the applicant’s arguments.

72As regards the complaint set out in paragraph 69 above, it is sufficient to hold that the Board of Appeal correctly applied in the contested decision – which alone is the subject of the review of legality carried out by the Court – the legal principles set out in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C‑395/16, EU:C:2018:172). In particular, it is in no way apparent from the contested decision that the Board of Appeal sought to determine, for the purposes of applying Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, whether a given feature of appearance of the product concerned ‘enhance[d] its appearance’ or, in other words, gave it an aesthetic quality. Likewise, it is in no way apparent from that decision that the Board of Appeal ‘endorsed’ an analysis such as the one allegedly carried out by the Invalidity Division. The applicant’s complaint must therefore be rejected.

73The two complaints set out in paragraph 70 above cannot be upheld, either.

74First, in the judgment of 18 November 2020, Fluid distribution equipment (T‑574/19, EU:T:2020:543, paragraph 47), the Court concluded that, as regards the design that was at issue in that case – which was included in the multiple application for registration referred to in paragraph 4 above – the fact that the features of appearance of the product concerned coincided with its individual component parts did not mean that the Board of Appeal had erred in the identification of those features. It should also be recalled that, in the assessment of the first part of the plea, the Court concluded that the Board of Appeal had not erred in the identification of the features of appearance of the product concerned. Accordingly, the complaint that the Board of Appeal wrongly focused its analysis on the components of the product concerned and not on its features of appearance cannot be upheld.

75Second, as regards the applicant’s claim that the Board of Appeal confirmed the Invalidity Division’s analysis that the product concerned was a single-use product and thus had limited aesthetic value, it must be held that the contested decision is in no way based on such a consideration.

76On the basis of the foregoing considerations, the third part of the plea must be rejected.

The fourth part, alleging misinterpretation of the European patent application and of the applicant’s multiple application for registration

77In the fourth part of the plea, the applicant raises two complaints against the Board of Appeal.

78In the first place, the applicant claims that the Board of Appeal misinterpreted the European patent application, in so far as that application was silent on a potential technical function of a number of features of appearance of the product concerned, such as the smooth surface of the hollow tubes, balloons and rings, the uniform elongated shape of the uninflated balloons, the thick appearance of the rings, the hexagonal array in the centre section of the housing and the choice of colour and contrasts.

79According to the applicant, the European patent application even mentions various design alternatives for certain features of appearance of the product concerned without mentioning any technical function of these design alternatives at all. The applicant refers, by way of example, to paragraph [0121] of the European patent application in which it is stated that the shape of the housing may be conical, cylindrical or pyramidal.

80EUIPO contests the applicant’s arguments.

81It should be recalled that, in paragraph 34 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal identified the features of appearance of the product concerned as being (i) a housing with an opening and a number of holes, (ii) a number of hollow tubes attached to the housing, (iii) a number of inflatable balloons connected to the ends of the tubes and, (iv) a number of fasteners fixing the balloons to the tubes. It should also be recalled that, in the assessment of the first part of the plea, the Court concluded that the Board of Appeal had not erred in the identification of the features of appearance of the product concerned.

82Therefore, it must be held that, as the Board of Appeal rightly noted in paragraph 36 of the contested decision, the European patent application provides information on all the abovementioned features of appearance of the product concerned and that Figures 9A to 9C of that application correspond visually to the views of the contested design.

83Moreover, the fact that, in paragraph [0121] of the European patent application, it is stated that the shape of the housing may be conical, cylindrical or pyramidal is not sufficient to demonstrate that, in the present case, the cylindrical shape of the housing is not solely dictated by technical considerations related to the fact that the water distribution facility – such as a tap or hosepipe – normally has a cylindrical shape. In that regard, it should be recalled that the existence of alternative designs is not decisive for the purposes of assessing whether the features of appearance of a product are solely dictated by its technical function (judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM, C‑395/16, EU:C:2018:172, paragraph 32).

84The applicant’s first complaint must therefore be rejected.

85In the second place, the applicant maintains that the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the multiple application for registration showed that the various features of appearance of the product concerned were solely dictated by the technical function of the product. According to the applicant, that multiple application for registration shows the opposite, namely that a large variety of design options exist for the contested design.

86The applicant adds that the Board of Appeal’s analysis results in an application of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 to multiple applications for registration which does not correspond to the scheme of that regulation. The applicant relies in that regard on Article 37(4) of that regulation, which provides that each design included in a multiple application for registration must be examined separately.

87The applicant claims that, if the analysis of the multiple application for registration carried out by the Board of Appeal in the present case were upheld, it would mean that Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 would apply more readily to designs included in multiple applications for registration than to designs included in individual applications, which would place applicants for multiple registration at a disadvantage.

88EUIPO contests the applicant’s arguments.

89It should be noted that, in paragraph 42 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal found that the Invalidity Division was fully entitled to take into account the applicant’s other designs included in the multiple application for registration, given that the information which could be inferred from those other registered designs for the same product was one of the relevant objective circumstances in the present case that had to be taken into account in order to determine whether Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 applied.

90The Invalidity Division had taken into account the other registered designs (of which the applicant was proprietor) for the same product and found that those other designs exemplified the analysis of the Court of Justice in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C‑395/16, EU:C:2018:172, paragraph 30), according to which the existence of alternative designs was not decisive for the purposes of applying Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002:

‘… A single economic operator would be able to obtain several registrations as a Community design of different possible forms of a product incorporating features of appearance of that product which are exclusively dictated by its technical function. That would enable such an operator to benefit, with regard to such a product, from exclusive protection which is, in practice, equivalent to that offered by a patent, but without being subject to the conditions applicable for obtaining the latter, which would prevent competitors offering a product incorporating certain functional features or limit the possible technical solutions, thereby depriving Article 8(1) of its full effectiveness.’

91It should be noted, as the Invalidity Division did, that the configurations of the tubes and balloons, which appear on the designs included in the multiple application for registration, are different ways of enabling a large number of balloons to be filled with water at the same time, which, in the circumstances of the present case, is an indication of the applicant’s intention to enjoy exclusive protection, equivalent to that conferred by a patent, in respect of the technical solution that is the basis of the product concerned.

92At the same time, it is apparent from the contested decision that the multiple registrations made by the applicant for the same product constituted one of the objective circumstances examined by the Board of Appeal, which is, moreover, consistent with the clarifications provided by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C‑395/16, EU:C:2018:172). In other words, the Board of Appeal’s analysis was not based exclusively on that multitude of registrations and that fact was not even decisive in that analysis. It is apparent from the contested decision that the Board of Appeal inter alia took into account the appearance of the contested design (paragraphs 32 to 35 of the contested decision), the European patent application (paragraph 36 of the contested decision) and the ‘Bunch O Balloons’ article (paragraph 37 of the contested decision) and examined the counter-arguments put forward by the applicant and the witness statement by the designer of the contested design (paragraphs 40 to 43 of the contested decision).

93Furthermore, in view of the fact that the multiple registrations were, in the present case, one of the objective circumstances taken into account by the Board of Appeal, and not the most decisive, it must be held that its analysis in no way leads to the conclusion that Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 applies, as a matter of principle, more readily to designs included in multiple applications for registration than to designs included in individual applications. The argument of the applicant set out in paragraph 87 above is therefore unfounded.

94In the light of the foregoing considerations, the applicant’s second complaint and, consequently, the fourth part of the plea must be rejected. The present action must therefore be dismissed in its entirety.

Costs

95Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs incurred by EUIPO, as applied for in its pleadings.

On those grounds,

hereby:

1.Dismisses the action;

2.Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

Kornezov

Buttigieg

Kowalik-Bańczyk

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 29 March 2023.

Registrar

President

—

*Language of the case: English.