Judge voices concern over quality of recreational ‘inflatable pillows’ used by children

A High Court judge has expressed his concerns about the quality and safety of large-sized outdoor inflatables primarily used for young children to jump on.

The concerns were expressed by Mr Justice Brian Cregan in relation to Co Galway-registered Air Bouncers Ltd and Ausmur Civil Limited, which were found by the High Court to have breached Blaabjerg LEG APS trademark and intellectual property rights.

Arising out of the breaches, the judge awarded €221,000 in damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages and costs to Blaabjerg.

The judge said that he was also allowing Blaabjerg to continue its proceedings and seek an order for damages despite the fact the Eyrecourt-based defendants have recently gone into voluntary liquidation.

Van Gogh Museum targeted by cyber attack that replicated official website and stole credit card details

---

Walk-outs, protests and sit-ins: how Gaza conflict is stirring tensions in Irish universities

---

Tactical breakdown: Puckout strategies for Cork and Clare still need some finessing

---

‘No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs’: Irish Times readers recall seeing notorious signs in Britain

---

The court heard that since the early 1980s the Danish company has made and has trademarked, ‘Jumping Pillows’ which are large outdoor-based inflated pillows made from rubber that are built into the ground.

The court heard the plaintiff’s ‘Jumping Pillows’ products operate like “a bouncy castle without walls”, and thousands of them have been installed in parks and recreational facilities all over Europe.

Blaabjerg distributes and markets the products under various licence agreements, including one for Ireland and the UK. A small number of these inflatables have been installed at outdoor venues in Ireland.

The defendants, the court heard, infringed the Danish company’s trademark and passed off its goods by using the words “Jumping Pillows” on websites where it offered similar types of inflatable structures for sale.

It was also alleged that the defendants’ products are of inferior quality.

Blaabjerg, whose products fully comply with the relative safety standards, feared this would result in confusion in the market and its own business suffering irreparable harm.

The defendants, it was claimed, refused to desist from the breaches.

The plaintiff was represented in the proceedings by barrister Garret Flynn, instructed by solicitor Tom O’Byrne of O’Flynn Exhams solicitors.

Counsel said the High Court previously made orders against the defendants and the application for the quantification of damages was not contested.

In his decision on the quantification matter, the judge said he was satisfied to make the damages award against the defendants.

He also said he was concerned about the quality of the defendants’ product, having heard and accepted evidence that the defendants made inflatables with a type of material used for trucks. The judge added that no accidents appeared to have occurred with the defendants’ inflatables.

He noted the trademark dispute between the parties originated some years ago.

He said that following negotiations, a settlement agreement was reached in 2020, with the defendants agreeing not to use words similar to Jumping Pillows to market their products and to take down websites where the plaintiff’s trademark was infringed.

However, the plaintiff claimed the defendants breached the settlement agreement through their continued infringement of the trademark on various websites registered by them.

The judge noted the plaintiff’s concerns about the defendants going into voluntary liquidation following a creditors’ meeting.

The plaintiff was not given prior notice of that meeting, and the judge said the plaintiff was considering its position on whether to seek to challenge the appointment of the liquidator to the defendants.

The judge further voiced his concern that the defendant companies disregarded an order previously made by the High Court requiring them to disclose certain details to the plaintiff.

The judge directed the liquidator appointed over the defendants to produce the information to the plaintiff within the next three weeks.

The judge adjourned the matter.