Fatboy v. Coolado: The Hague District Court confirms broad protection for registered designs

On 21 August 2025, the District Court of The Hague rendered a judgment in the Fatboy the Original B.V. (“Fatboy”) v. Antlio B.V. (“Coolado”) case, addressing the scope of protection under Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 (the “EUDR”). The decision underscores the broad reach of registered European Union (“EU”) designs and reaffirms that EU design protection is not easily bypassed by introducing minor technical or functional variations.

Background

Fatboy, a Dutch furniture company known for its lifestyle products, is the holder of a registered EU design for a chaise longue (Reg. No. 002621904-0001), filed and registered on 28 January 2015. The product is commercially known as the Lamzac: a distinctive inflatable lounge chair characterized by its “sausage-like” double-tube form, closed at one end and knotted at the other end.

Coolado also manufacturers inflatable seating products. It marketed the LayTube, a similar air chaise longue, through its own website and major online platforms such as bol.com and Amazon. Fatboy objected to these sales and, after unsuccessful correspondence with Coolado, initiated summary proceedings before the District Court of The Hague.

Fatboy requested an injunction, delivery of supplier and customer information, destruction of stock, and reimbursement of litigation costs. In essence, Fatboy argued that the LayTube created the same overall impression as the Lamzac and therefore infringed its design right under the EUDR.

Coolado contested both the urgency and the merits, arguing that (i) Fatboy had delayed enforcement, undermining the urgency requirement for summary proceedings; (ii) the Lamzac’s features were dictated by technical function and thus not protectable; (iii) the LayTube differed in appearance; and (iv) the LayTube was closer to prior art products that the Lamzac differed from.

Legal framework

Under the EUDR, an EU design is protected if it is new and has individual character. Protection does not extend to features of appearance that are solely dictated by technical function.

The scope of protection covers any design that does not produce a different overall impression on the informed user, taking into account the designer’s degree of freedom. The design holder has the exclusive right to prevent third parties from using a product embodying the protected design.

The present case turned on two questions:

1. Were the contested features of the Lamzac excluded from protection as technically dictated?
2. Did the LayTube create a different overall impression from the Lamzac on the informed user?

The court’s assessment

Urgency

Coolado argued that Fatboy’s delay meant that no urgency existed, as the LayTube had been crowdfunded years earlier and promoted widely in 2024. The court disagreed. It reiterated that ongoing infringement of intellectual property rights generally imply urgency, and that Coolado had not demonstrated that Fatboy had knowledge of the LayTube at an earlier stage. Hence, the court accepted urgency.

Technical function

Coolado submitted that the Lamzac’s double tube shape served functional and even therapeutic purposes, claiming it provided ergonomic support. The court, however, rejected this argument. Referring to earlier decisions, the court confirmed that the Lamzac’s design was not solely technically dictated.[1]

Even if certain features had practical advantages, there existed alternative design solutions, such as a rectangular, oval, or differently shaped chaise longue, capable of achieving similar functions. This meant that the Lamzac’s form could not be reduced to technical necessity, and remained protectable as a design.

Comparison of the overall impression

The heart of the dispute concerned whether the LayTube generated a different overall impression from the Lamzac on the informed user. The court emphasized that the informed user is more observant than the average consumer but less technically specialized than an expert.

The court then listed the essential features of Fatboy’s registered EU design as (i) an elongated double-tube structure, sewn together lengthwise; (ii) one end continuing onto a point, and the other end featuring a closed rolled-up opening; and (iii) the resulting overall “sausage-like” form.

Although Coolado argued that its LayTube was symmetrical and included a valve system, the court found these distinctions insufficient to change the general visual impression. The court recalled earlier case law on Fatboy’s Lamzac, where despite differences at one end of the product, the court had still found infringement.[2]

Likewise, the LayTube’s similarities in shape and closure outweighed its minor differences. Importantly, when the LayTube’s closure buckle was fastened, which consumers were likely to do, the product appeared even more similar to the Lamzac.

The court concluded that the LayTube conveyed the same overall impression to the informed user and thus infringed Fatboy’s design.

Relief granted

The court granted an injunction, meaning Coolado had to cease all infringing acts in the European Union within 48 hours, under penalty of EUR 200 per infringing product or EUR 2.000 per day, capped at EUR 100.000. Additionally, Coolado had to provide Fatboy with full supplier and producer information and provide data on production, sales, and remaining stock. Coolado was furthermore ordered to pay Fatboy’s legal costs.

The Fatboy v. Coolado decision demonstrates that EU design rights provide strong and enforceable protection across the EU. The court not only dismissed arguments that the Lamzac was dictated by technical necessity, but with its decision also made clear that competitors cannot rely on small alterations to escape liability for infringement. In addition, the decision shows the liberal approach of the urgency requirement in summary proceedings in the Netherlands compared to many other European countries.

For companies operating in design-driven industries, the appearance of a product is a valuable commercial asset. Competitors seeking to bring alternative products to market must carefully consider the risk of infringing registered EU designs, as superficial differences may not suffice to avoid an injunction.