Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-02-26
R0026/2019-3
Contested design: 003797257-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; 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
Ningbo Beidou Outdoor Products Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Yangjia Village, Jishigang Town, Yinzhou District, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, 315171, People's Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Inflatable lounger / chaise longue (LAMZAC design)
RCD No 2 621 904-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-02-03
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Invalidity applicant (Fatboy, owner of the 'LAMZAC' design RCD No 2 621 904-0001) appealed rejection of its invalidity claim against inflatable sofa/bed RCD No 3 797 257-0001, arguing the designs share the same 'sewn sausage shape', slit, and closure mechanism; national courts had repeatedly found similar designs infringe its LAMZAC design; designer's freedom is wide.
- ›Design holder (Ningbo Beidou) argued the contested RCD has a rectangular parallelepiped shape with pillow-shaped elevated headrest, blue cover/bag, and two-tone colouring clearly distinguishing it from the ellipsoid LAMZAC design; also questioned admissibility of untranslated national court decisions.
- ›The Board found the most conspicuous difference is the overall shape: the contested RCD is rectangular with a pillow-shaped elevated headrest whereas the prior design is ellipsoid with a pointed canoe-tip head; the colour contrast (blue/black vs monochrome), flat vs pointed bottom, and attached accessories (blanket and bag) further differentiate the designs and produce a different overall impression despite wide designer freedom.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the RCD is novel and has individual character; invalidity applicant bears costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarR. Vidal
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0574/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | — | 7 |
| R0573/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | — | 7 |
| R2060/2019-3 | 2022-02-01 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | — | 7 |
| R1350/2018-3 | 2019-11-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | — | 7 |
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R2328/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R0789/2024-3 | 2025-07-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |