EUIPO: model LAMZAC geldig

21-09-2017 Print this page
B915125
(Met dank aan Jacqueline Schaap en Patty de Leeuwe, Visser Schaap & Kreijger)

EUIPO, 14 september 2017, Hirams Trade v Fatboy

 

Modelrecht. Hirams Trade stelt dat het Gemeenschapsmodel van Fatboy voor de “Chaise longues” nietig moet worden verklaard, omdat het technisch bepaald zou zijn, niet nieuw is en eigen karakter zou ontberen.

 

Verzoekster heeft niet aangetoond dat het model technisch bepaald is. De door verzoekster ingediende octrooiregistratie is niet vertaald. Hoewel de “roller closure”, “tubular shape” en “plain surface” van het bestreden model betrekking hebben op de veilige sluiting van de lounger en de mogelijkheid om erop te liggen, is niet aangetoond dat deze elementen enkel vanwege deze functies aanwezig zijn.

 

Ook de nieuwheidsaanval faalt. De door verzoekster genoemde oudere modellen wijken op een aantal punten af van het aangevallen model.

 

“The end of the bag of the contested RCD becomes oval in shape when inflated and the other end of the bag is rectangular. However, both ends of the earlier designs seem to be rectangular. Moreover, the ends of earlier design D2 sharply extend upwards. The same can be said of earlier design D1, albeit the extension is not as sharp as in D2. This feature is non-existent in the contested design.

 

Even though all of the products have a trench extending along the lounge bag when inflated, it is apparent that this trench in the contested design is not deep and is tight enough to for it to be lain on. However, in the earlier designs, the trench is wide and loose enough to divide the bag into two parts, allowing the user to sit inside the bag, rather than to lie on its surface. This feature is supported by the additional four handles in the earlier designs, which are placed alongside the trench, so that the person sitting inside the lounger can lift themselves up. Moreover, the contested design has an additional white decorative tag that is not present in the earlier designs.”

 

Het aangevallen model heeft volgens het EUIPO eigen karakter, vanwege een aantal verschillen met de oudere modellen.

 

“Moreover, the Invalidity Division has identified several other differences between the designs compared (see the section on novelty in this decision), allowing it to be concluded that the contested design enjoys individual character, even though the designer's degree of freedom is not substantially limited.

 

The Invalidity Division identifies even more differences when the contested design is compared with earlier design D2, the top corners of which extend sharply upwards, resembling a boat or a canoe, as claimed by the applicant itself. This feature is not present in the contested designs, the ends of which are symmetrical and extend to the same point at the top and bottom.

 

In addition, one end of the contested design is rounded, due to its closing mechanism. This feature is not seen in either of the earlier designs. Finally, earlier designs D1 and D2 have handles, but handles are not visible in the views of the contested design, and the contested design also has an additional tag.”

 

Lees de uitspraak hier.