Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-02-26
R2406/2018-3
Contested design: 003753508-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the design holders' costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holders.
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
Petr Vobrvia PDF extraction
Czechia (CZ)
Čejkovice 100, 373 41 Hluboká nad Vltavou, Czech Republic
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Chaise longues (inflatable lounger / LAMZAC design)
RCD No 2 621 904-001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-02-03
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Invalidity applicant (Fatboy) argued that the contested RCD for an inflatable sofa lacked novelty and individual character compared to its earlier LAMZAC design (RCD 2 621 904-001), relying on a wide designer freedom and multiple national court decisions enforcing the LAMZAC design against similar products.
- ›Design holders argued that the LAMZAC and the contested RCD differ significantly in shape and closure mechanism, that the national court decisions were not duly submitted and are not binding on the Office, and that the contested RCD possesses both novelty and individual character.
- ›The Board found the prior design was properly disclosed via publication in the Community Designs Bulletin. Designer freedom for inflatable loungers was found to be wide. The Board identified decisive differences in overall shape: the contested RCD has a rectangular parallelepiped form with a triple-slit trapezoid headrest, whereas the prior design has an ellipsoid 'canoe' shape with a single-slit narrower headrest.
- ›The Board confirmed that these shape differences produce different overall impressions on the informed user and are sufficient to establish individual character and novelty; national court decisions are not binding on the Office. The appeal was dismissed.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberC. Negro
- Registrarp.o. R. Vidal
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 |