Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-09-09
R1585/2018-3
Contested design: 003451160-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the design holder's costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Fatboy the Original B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
De Steenbok 19-21, 5215 MG 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Shenzhen Dasiney Sleep Technology Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Floor 5, No. 188, Longhu Road, Longdong Community, Longgang Street, Longgang District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province 518000, People's Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Chaise longues / inflatable lounger 'LAMZAC'; published in Community Designs Bulletin on 3 February 2015
RCD No 2 621 904-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-02-03
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (Fatboy) appealed the rejection of its invalidity application, arguing that its prior LAMZAC design (RCD No 2 621 904-0001) destroys the novelty and individual character of the contested RCD (inflatable sofa/bag) because both share a 'sewn sausage shape', kink at one end, and large rolled-up opening.
- ›The design holder (Shenzhen Dasiney) maintained that the contested RCD is distinct, relying on the pillow-shaped headrest and additional design elements; it also argued national court decisions submitted by the applicant were irrelevant.
- ›The Board found that the most conspicuous difference — the general shape (rectangular versus ellipsoid) and the formation of the headrest (flattened trapezoid versus thin pointed tip) — was sufficient to generate a different overall impression on the informed user; national court decisions are not binding on the Board.
- ›The appeal is dismissed, the contested decision rejecting the invalidity application is confirmed, and the applicant is ordered to bear costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| 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 ↗ |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0536/2025-3 | 2025-09-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0538/2025-3 | 2025-09-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2063/2021-3 | 2022-07-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0363/2021-3 | 2022-07-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0051/2017-3 | 2021-12-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1855/2020-3 | 2021-07-02 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1856/2020-3 | 2021-06-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2837/2019-3 | 2020-11-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |