From the depths of innovation to the Courts: Decathlon’s snorkelling mask design registrations kept afloat

On June 4, 2025, in cases T-1060/23 and T-1061/23, the European Union General Court (GC) upheld the validity of two EU-registered designs (002340224-0001 and 002526699-0001) for Decathlon’s full-face snorkelling mask, the "EASYBREATH.", dismissing the legal challenge filed by Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH (“Delta-Sport”). 

These decisions show that although a product may be designed with a technical function in mind, in this case, allowing a user to breathe with their face submerged in water, there can still be aesthetic considerations allowing the product to benefit from registered design protection. Further, the decisions highlight the importance of filing multiple designs for a particular product and documenting the evolution of the product during its development. 

The designs 

Decathlon held the following two EU registered designs for their full-face snorkelling mask.

002526699-0001

002340224-0001

Applications for invalidity

On 31 March 2021, Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH (Delta-Sport) filed applications for invalidity against both of Decathlon’s design registrations at the EUIPO. 

Delta-Sport argued that both designs were dictated exclusively by its technical function and were devoid of individual character, and as part of these requests cited an earlier French patent (FR 2 720 050 published on 24 November 1995)

Figures from FR 2 720 050

On July 19, 2022, the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO rejected Delta-Sport’s request to invalidate the designs, and the designs were maintained. 

On September 7, 2022, Delta-Sport appealed the decision to the EUIPO Board of Appeal.

The Board of Appeal later dismissed the appeal, stating that:

• The applicant failed to prove that all aspects of the design were solely dictated by the product’s technical function.
• The designs had individual character, as they showed several key differences compared to the earlier French patent application. 

Delta-Sport appealed further, requesting that the General Court annul the contested decision and declare the designs invalid. 

The General Court ruling

Delta-Sport argued that the contested designs’ key features are entirely dictated by technical function and argued that the rounded oval frame of the snorkel masks aligns with facial anatomy, ensuring a precise fit, a broad field of vision, and optimal fluidity. Additionally, Delta-Sport argued that the head strap attachment is solely designed for secure and comfortable wear.

Delta-Sport’s arguments that the designs are dictated by technical function primarily relied on:

• an earlier French patent, plus another European patent and two German utility models which show full-face snorkelling masks; 
• the principle that the mere existence of alternative designs does not mean that the design in question is not dictated by technical function (DOCERAM  C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172); and 
• the discrediting of a promotional video released prior to the invalidity requests along with statements from the design manager showing that Decathlon’s design is not dictated by technical function. 

The General Court upheld the findings of the EUIPO and Board of Appeal, confirming that at least two features of the masks were not solely dictated by technical function. To reach this conclusion, the Board of Appeal examined multiple sources, including descriptions and illustrations from earlier patents and utility models, comparisons with other diving masks sold by Decathlon and third parties, a promotional video titled Behind the Scenes of the Design of the Easybreath Mask, and statements from Decathlon’s design and project managers.

The General Court further ruled that the non-functional features of the design, specifically the oval shape of the mask and the "X" band, possess individual character. It found that Decathlon’s oval outer frame has rounded, slightly flattened lines, whereas the French patent design has a more square appearance. Similarly, Decathlon’s head strap follows an "X" shape, connected at the centre and fixed to the lower part of the frame, while the French patent design features a much wider strap that covers the ears and a large portion of the skull. Additional distinctions include variations in the snorkel cap shape, the presence of a notch on the nose, and differences in the inner skirt design.

Further, regarding the 002340224-0001 design, the General Court recognised that a diving mask’s design must account for functional constraints, such as enabling breathing, underwater visibility, and ensuring watertightness. However, it also noted that designers still have significant freedom when designing non-functional aspects, including the exact proportions, colours, materials, and decorative elements.

Although Decathlon’s design and the earlier French patent share common features, such as a frame, window, skirt, and snorkel, these elements are characteristic of all diving masks. The Court emphasized that several distinctive attributes set Decathlon’s design apart, including the shape of the outer frame, the "X"-shaped head strap, visible colours, the snorkel cap’s form, the presence of a notch on the nose, and the inner skirt’s design. These differences produce a different overall impression on the informed user compared to the earlier design.

002340224-0001

Accordingly, the General Court confirmed that both registrations are upheld. 

Take-away points

This ruling is a significant win for Decathlon, as both design registrations for their Easybreath mask have been upheld.

Decathlon have secured two design registrations: one featuring black-and-white line drawings (002526699-0001) and another incorporating photographs/CAD models in colour (002340224-0001). While both decisions assessed whether the designs were dictated by technical function in the same way, the CAD model design received additional consideration for its use of colour when assessing individual character. Notably, if the black-and-white design had been found to lack individual character, the colour CAD model could still have remained valid. This highlights the strategic advantage of filing multiple design registrations with differing scopes for the same product. 

Decathlon appears to have only two registered designs in the EU for its mask. To strengthen and potentially broaden their protection, they could have considered filing additional black-and-white line drawing designs with certain features disclaimed or submitting photographs/CAD models in grayscale. Establishing a well-planned filing strategy from the outset is essential to maximising a product's legal protection. 

The decisions frequently referenced the 2018 DOCERAM case, which clarified that the presence of alternative designs is not enough to determine that a design is not dictated solely by technical function. These cases serve as a crucial reminder that simply offering an alternative does not prove that a design is not dictated by technical function. 

Decathlon presented various pieces of evidence to support its case that the designs are not dictated by technical function, including a video showcasing the design and development process of its mask. Additionally, it provided proof that a design company had been consulted to create prototypes and refine the mask’s aesthetics, demonstrating the creative considerations involved in its development. All of this evidence, dated before Delta-Sport filed its invalidity actions, contributed to the argument that the designs were not dictated solely by technical function. These rulings highlight the importance of documenting a product’s evolution, along with the reasoning behind specific design modifications, to safeguard its originality and protection.

Finally, these decisions highlight that even when a product is designed to achieve a technical purpose, such as enabling a user to breathe while their face is submerged in water, there can still be aesthetic considerations allowing the product to benefit from registered design protection. These decisions serve as a clear reminder to the importance of evaluating whether securing registered design rights for a product could add value to a business’ overall protection strategy.