Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-09-30
R1586/2018-3
Contested design: 004121069-0001
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 Jingoudian Electronic Technology Co., LTD.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Room 301, Building 3, Bole Industrial Park Banxuegan Road, Yangmei Community Bantian Street, Longgang District, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
LAMZAC inflatable lounger / chaise longue
RCD No 2 621 904-001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-02-03
Internet extracts of inflatable lounger designs
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (Fatboy) argued the contested inflatable sofa RCD reproduced the 'LAMZAC' design's sewn sausage shape, kink, and rolled-up opening, with designer enjoying wide freedom; several national courts had upheld the LAMZAC design's broad scope.
- ›The design holder filed no observations at either instance.
- ›The Board confirmed wide designer freedom but found the contested RCD (rectangular parallelepiped shape, double-slit elevated headrest with two pointed ends) produces a different overall impression from the prior LAMZAC design (ellipsoid, single slit, thin pointed end); national court decisions are not binding on the Board.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the contested RCD has sufficient individual character and novelty over the prior LAMZAC design.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0538/2025-3 | 2025-09-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0536/2025-3 | 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 |