An appeals court has weighed in on the reach of EU design rights, ruling that dog waste bag holders that allegedly mimic Longchamp’s Le Pliage bag do not infringe the company’s registered design for the hot-selling handbag. In a mixed ruling that serves as a test of the outer limits of EU design protection, the Brussels Court of Appeal’s decision underscores both the strength and the boundaries of EU design rights in the fashion and accessories space.
The Background in Brief: The long-running case centers on an EU design registered by Jean Cassegrain SAS (“Longchamp”) for a small accessory from its Le Pliage collection. Since 2013, Vadigran, a pet accessories wholesaler, has marketed small leather pouches designed to hold rolls of dog waste bags, sold under the “Nobby” brand, which prompted Longchamp to file suit. Longchamp argued that Vadigran’s products unlawfully reproduce its protected design and Vadigran pushed back, denying infringement and counterclaiming that Longchamp’s design is invalid because it consists of standard, technical features common to wallets and small pouches.
No Infringement, No Invalidity
In its decision on January 13, the Brussels Court of Appeal rejected Longchamp’s infringement claims in their entirety and dismissed Vadigran’s bid to invalidate the underlying EU design. Focusing first on Longchamp’s infringement claim, the court noted that EU design protection does not extend to features of appearance that are solely dictated by technical function. Against this background, the court was unpersuaded by Longchamp’s argument that Vadigran infringed its design by replicating elements of its Le Pliage accessory design, including a flap with a snap fastener, the overall shape of the pouch, and the way the product is closed.
The court held that these elements are functionally necessary for the type of product at issue and therefore excluded from design protection under Article 8(1) of the EU Design Regulation.
Removing those technical features from the mix, the court turned to the remaining, non-technical elements and asked whether the allegedly infringing Vadigran goods produced the same overall impression on the informed user. Siding with Vadigran, the court held that differences in size, proportions, context of use, and market positioning are sufficient to prevent the products from producing the same overall impression on the informed user under EU design law.
> The crux of the court’s finding: A luxury accessory sold as part of an established fashion collection does not create the same overall impression as a utilitarian dog waste bag holder sold through pet supplies channels.
The court similarly dismissed Vadigran’s counterclaim in furtherance of which the company argued that Longchamp’s EU design should be invalidated because it was made up of standard or technically dictated features, such as size, reinforcement at the ends, zipper closure, and the presence of a name or logo. Citing established case law, including the Court of Justice’s DOCERAM decision, Court of Appeal emphazied that the key question is whether technical function was the only factor that determined the design. The mere fact that a product serves a function or includes functional elements is not enough.
Here, the court identified several aspects of Longchamp’s registered design that go beyond technical necessity, including its trapezoidal shape (with the top significantly wider than the bottom), a relatively large semi-elliptical flap positioned below the zipper, a prominent contrasting round button, lip-shaped protrusions extending from the top line, contrasting stitching, and a proportionally large elongated zipper pull. Vadigran failed to demonstrate that these features served a purely technical purpose, according to the court.
Together, the court’s finding that there were no identical or virtually identical prior designs and its emphasis on the broad design freedom that exists in the bags and wallets sector were enough to confirm that the Longchamp design is both new and possesses individual character. As such, it rejected Vadigran’s invalidity claim.
With no infringement established and no basis for invalidity, the court dismissed Longchamp’s claims, upheld the earlier judgment, and ordered the company to cover the costs of the proceedings.
THE BOTTOM LINE: For fashion and accessories brands, the decision is a familiar but instructive one. EU design rights remain a powerful tool for protecting the visual identity of products that sit at the intersection of aesthetics and function. At the same time, courts will not allow those rights to be used to monopolize features that are functionally inevitable, nor will they stretch protection across products that operate in clearly different commercial and practical contexts. Le Pliage may be well-known, but as this case makes clear, not every pouch with a flap and a snap falls within its enforcement orbit.
The case is Jean Cassegrain SAS v. Vadigran NV, 2018/AR/957 (Brussels Court of Appeal).
Share
