DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004117521-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-09-30

R1587/2018-3

Contested design: 004117521-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

Holder · RCD owner

SHENZHEN PINGGUOFENG TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

Information Bldg, Rm 506, Bldg 10, Qiaonan Jiazhao Garden, Qiaotou Community, Fuyiong St., Bao'an District, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China

Represented by

A.BRE.MAR. S.R.L.

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCD

LAMZAC inflatable lounger / chaise longue

RCD No 2 621 904-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-02-03

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Internet extracts of inflatable lounger designs

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7(1)

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; designer freedom is wide; national courts 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, elevated trapezoid headrest with two pointed ends, bicoloured light blue/black, protruding hexagon-shape bulge) produces a different overall impression from the prior LAMZAC design (ellipsoid, single slit, thin pointed end, monochrome).
  • 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

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0116/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0115/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1669/2023-32024-11-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2453/2023-32024-10-30Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0952/2021-32024-09-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2140/2023-32024-08-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2585/2023-32024-08-06Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1745/2023-32024-06-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5