Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-03-22
R0347/2018-3
Contested design: 003308204-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the invalidity applicant shall reimburse EUR 500 in total to the design holder.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
Il ricorso è respinto; La richiedente la nullità rifonderà la somma totale di 500 EUR alla titolare.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €500
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Fatboy the Original B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
De Steenbok 19-21, 5215 MG 's-Hertogenbosch, Paesi Bassi
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
DUE ESSE DISTRIBUZIONI S.R.L.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Mottola Km. 2,200 - Zona industriale, 74015 Martina Franca (TA), Italia
Represented by
Avv. Carmela Tiziana Pulpito
Prior art cited (1)
Inflatable sack mattress / lounger (Lamzac) — air-filled by capturing wind, consisting of two curved tubular elements in a bean/leaf shape
RCD No 262 1904-0001 · Community Design Bulletin / EUIPO · disclosed 2015-01-28
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Invalidity applicant (appellant) argued that the contested inflatable seat/mattress design (RCD 3 308 204-0001) lacked individual character over its own earlier Lamzac design (RCD 262 1904-0001) because both shared the characteristic 'sausage-stitched' tubular form and it was this feature that most struck the informed user; it argued the designer had wide freedom as the sausage shape was not solely dictated by technical function.
- ›Design holder (respondent) maintained that the overall impression of the two designs was different: the Lamzac has two curved tubes (bean/leaf shape) while the contested design has three tubular elements (two long parallel + one short transverse) in a sarcophagus/rectangular form.
- ›The Board found the designer's freedom was broad for this type of product. On comparison, the two designs differed fundamentally in overall geometry: the contested design is essentially a rectangular parallelepiped (straight lines and perpendicular angles), while the Lamzac is an ellipsoid (dominated by curves); the head sections also differ (right-angled in the contested, pointed in the Lamzac). These differences were prominent enough to exclude a 'déjà vu' impression.
- ›The common feature of two longitudinal tubular elements separated by a groove was not sufficient to create the same overall impression, as an informed user understands this structural feature is functional (two tubes are ideal for comfort and stability). The Board also rejected novelty attack as the formal differences were not mere irrelevant details.
- ›Appeal dismissed; invalidity applicant ordered to reimburse EUR 500 to design holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberC. Negro
- Registrarp.o. N. Granado Carpenter
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |