DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002621904-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-02-20

000010933

Contested design: 002621904-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 002621904-0001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

IP-Agency Finland Oy

Finland (FI)

Honkanummentie 2, 01260 Vantaa, Finland

Represented by

Heinonen & Co

Holder · RCD owner

Fatboy the Original B.V.

Netherlands (NL)

De Steenbok 19-21, 5215 MG ’s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands

Prior art cited (4)

PatentD1

patent drawings showing a closure mechanism for an inflatable lounger or bag

EP 0 810 950 B1 · European patent publication · disclosed 2001-04-25

Web disclosureD2

inflatable lounger shown on a Walmart webpage archived by the Internet Archive

www.walmart.com · Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2014-10-07

Web disclosureD3

‘Abilitations Inflatable Green Pea Pod Child Calming Station’

www.amazon.com · Amazon · disclosed 2014-01-12

Web disclosureD4

inflatable calming station shown on the Fun and Function website

www.funandfunction.com · Fun and Function · disclosed 2014-04-11

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 6(1)Article 7Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character and argued that the design's key features were solely dictated by technical function.
  • The holder replied that the lounger reflected real aesthetic choices, that alternative designs existed, and that the cited patent and web disclosures created different overall impressions.
  • The Division accepted D1-D4 as prior disclosures but found no convincing evidence that the contested design's essential features were solely technically dictated.
  • It also found the cited designs were neither identical nor capable of producing the same overall impression, so the RCD retained novelty and individual character.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELISOVA
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

06.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000107779

vs ANJI WEIYU FURNITURE CO., LTD.

2020-04-03Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)068
000105800

vs Next Retail Limited

2020-04-02Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)068
000108302

vs INTER LINK SAS

2020-01-20Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)068
000101539

vs Soma Group d.o.o.

2019-07-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)068
000101480

vs Soma Group d.o.o.

2019-07-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)068
000101520

vs Soma Group d.o.o.

2019-07-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)068
000102339

vs Syzan Sp. z o.o.

2019-04-25Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)068
000102859

vs Syzan Sp. z o.o.

2019-04-25Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)068