Lamzac vs Kaisr the original inflatable lounge seat

In 2014, Marijn Oomen launches the inflatable life size lounge seat, the LAMZAC Hangout. One simply swings the lightweight bag and it fills itself with air and creates a life size lounge seat. The air remains in the seat by folding and rolling the opening. A lounge seat that can be placed in a minute. Ideally for relaxing, without having to worry about a hard or rocky ground. In order to be able to stand up against future products with the same overall impression, a European Union design is registered in 2015.

The LAMZAC Hangout does not remain unnoticed for long and both in the Netherlands and abroad different similar products appear, among them the KAISR Original. Fatboy (who purchased the rights on the LAMZAC) claims that Massive Air (the producer of KAISR) is infringing its rights. The latter contests this claim. The shape of the inflatable life size lounge seat is mainly required to obtain a technical result and therefore excluded from protection as a design.

The judge does not completely agree with this reasoning. It is right that an inflatable sofa must have certain minimal measurements in order to function. However, the designer still has a variation of shapes which he can choose to fulfil this. De KAISR has the same altitude, the same double pipe form and the same deep slit in the length. The two corners at the head are different, but insufficiently to create a distinct overall impression. Outcome: infringement and a prohibition. Massive AIR then introduces a modified design, the KAISR3 . The main objective is to provide for the customers that originally ordered the KAISR V1 or V2.

The judge also forbids this, because a profit may be made as a consequence of the earlier infringement. The customers should be returned their money and after that they can decide whether they want to purchase the KAISRV3 or the LAMZAC Hangout.

design-law



Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP quiz Trademarks

Puma is one of the bigger sports and lifestyle brands in the world. The core-business is the design, development and sale of (sports) shoes, (sports) clothing and accessories. In 1960, Puma registered an international trademark for a device designed in 1958: the formstrip. Since then, Puma has registered approximately 90 formstrip trademarks with validity in the Benelux or the European Union. Puma claims that this is a serial mark. Monshoe is a wholesaler of women's shoes and related products. The company designs and develops Monshoe shoes which it largely markets itself. Monshoe sells its women's shoes under the brands Shoecolate and Pearlz. The shoe Shoecolate is offered in various colour combinations. Puma claims that Monshoe infringes its well-known formstrip trademark. Monshoe contradicts this and states that the average consumer will not perceive the device of Monshoe on the sneakers as a trademark. And if the public will recognize a trademark in the decoration, it will not make the connection to Puma. According to Monshoe, the formstrip logo is not a well-known trademark within the meaning of the BVIE and the UMVo. There is no likelihood of confusion because the sign does not or hardly evoke any association with Puma among the public. In light of the above, who is right? Does this constitute decorative use or linking to a well-known trademark?