The President of the District Court of The Hague was of the opinion that he had cross-border jurisdiction to examine not only the claims lodged against the Dutch Loewe entity but also the claims lodged against the German Loewe entities. He subsequently rejected the claim that Loewe's Reference ID television infringed B&O's design. B&O's argument that its registered design constituted a design registration consisting of multiple designs and that, accordingly, only the picture of the front view of the television could be taken into account, was rejected.

According to the judge, the design right relates to a single design; the various pictures merely show the design from different angles and all pictures thus have to be taken into account. The judge was of the opinion that the design invoked did not have a very strong unique character and thus did not have a broad scope of protection. He agreed with Loewe that certain features of the design were already known from the prior art, in part even in combination. The unique character of the design was found to primarily manifest itself in a feature (a passe partout accentuated by a protruding speaker front) which was in fact lacking in the Reference ID.

B&O's copyright claims were also rejected since B&O had not proved that it was the copyright owner under Danish law.