R0896/2019-3

• ›The invalidity applicant (appellant) argued that the contested RCD's features — size, recessed centre, and roll-closure mechanism — are solely dictated by technical function, and that the RCD lacks novelty and individual character over prior designs D2–D10 (inflatable lounge bags of elongated pea-pod or boat shape sharing structural and closure features).
• ›The design holder (respondent) argued that aesthetic choices drove the design, that numerous alternative shapes exist for air-filled loungers (confirming designer freedom), and that the prior designs produce different overall impressions due to differences in ends, closure mechanism, absence of handles, and material; this position was confirmed by several national court decisions and a prior EUIPO decision.
• ›The Board found that the invalidity applicant failed to demonstrate all features of the contested RCD are solely technically dictated under Article 8(1) CDR, as no convincing evidence addressed features other than the closure mechanism. On individual character, the Board found the prior designs produced different overall impressions — particularly due to distinct differences in the shape of the ends, closure mechanism, trench depth, and presence/absence of handles — notwithstanding the shared elongated, two-tube structure.
• ›The appeal was dismissed; the contested Invalidity Division decision rejecting the invalidity application was confirmed.

• ChairTh. M. Margellos
• RapporteurC. Rusconi
• MemberC. Negro
• RegistrarH. Dijkema

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